Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

As amended, considered.

Clause 28

NOTICE OF STREET PROCESSIONS

Amendment made: Page 22, line 37 leave out from beginning to end of line 28 on page 23 and insert—

'(1)(a) No person shall organise or conduct a procession through any street in a district unless there has been served on the chief officer of police at any police station in the district through which the procession is intended to pass, a notice stating the route by which and the date and time on and at which it is intended that it should pass.

(b) Notice under paragraph (a) above shall be served at a time not less than 72 hours before the procession starts to pass through any street or as soon as reasonably practicable after that time.

(2) If any procession passes through any street in a district by a route or at a time which has not been stated in a notice relating to that

procession delivered in accordance with subsection (1) above, except in accordance with directions given by the chief officer of police under section 3 of the Public Order Act 1936 or other directions given by the senior police officer, if any, attending the procession, any person organising or conducting the procession shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.

(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to a procession:

(a) commonly or customarily held; or
(b) organised or conducted for the purpose of a funeral by a person acting in the normal course of his business where his business is that of a funeral director.

(4) For the furtherance of co-operation between the organisers of processions and the police, the Chief Constable shall issue a code of practice giving guidance to the organisers of processions on any matters which he deems to be relevant, and in particular drawing attention to:

(a) the desirability of notifying the police as early as possible when a procession is planned and publicised; and
(b) the need to make arrangements for stewarding and to agree the route with the police.

(5) Proceedings shall not be instituted for any offence under this section unless the proceedings are instituted by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.'—[Mr. David hunt.]

To be read the Third time.

STEVENAGE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading Read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 20 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Food Industry

Mr. Shersby: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the Food and Drink Industries Council concerning the responsibility for food industry matters when the new EEC Commission is established in 1981; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): The council has informed me of the request made to the President of the Commission by the association representing community food and drink manufacturers—CIAA—for improvements in arrangments within the Commission for dealing with matters affecting the industry. I welcome that initiative.

Mr. Shersby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because of the inevitable financial stress on the common agricultural policy during the life of the next Commission, that policy must become a common food and agriculture policy, reflecting the interests of the food industry as well as those of the farming community?

Mr. Walker: It is vital that the food industry has a better input into what is happening in terms of decision-taking in Europe. With regard to a common food policy, I would consider that only if it were better than the common agricultural policy.

Fisheries Regulations (Trawlers)

Mr. Torney: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many foreign trawlers have been arrested and their captains brought before British courts for infringing British fisheries regulations in 1979, as compared with British trawlers.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): A total of eighteen skippers of foreign fishing vessels and 59 skippers of United Kingdom vessels have

been prosecuted by United Kingdom Government Departments for infringements of United Kingdom fisheries regulations during 1979.

Mr. Torney: Will the hon. Gentleman inform me whether the arrest of French fishermen will be regarded as a provocative act by the French Government?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I sincerely hope that the French Government will not do so. The House must remember that the majority of French fishermen observe United Kingdom fishery regulations. Those fishermen who have not observed them have been prosecuted, and their cases are going through the courts of law.

Mr. John MacKay: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the only way in which we shall stop blatant illegal fishing is by ensuring that the fines are substantially greater than the profits that arise from breaching the regulations?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The question of fines is, of course, a matter for the courts. However, as the hon. Gentleman must have noticed, even in his constituency, some of those fines have been substantial.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Minister state what monitoring is carried out by his Department or by, the Scottish Office regarding landings in foreign ports? Is there any check?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Officers of our Departments do not physically check on what goes on in foreign ports, but we hold discussions, and have good arrangements, with the fisheries departments of other countries to make sure that the regulations are observed as well as possible throughout the Community.

Mr. Strang: Will the Minister accept that, before any disparities are pointed out and comparisons are drawn between foreign and British vessels, the nature of the offences should be taken into account, and also the fact that these are British waters, and, therefore, many more British vessels operate in them? Will the Minister of State accept that some of the fish that has been illegally caught by our EEC partners and not registered in EEC ports—there is documentary evidence of that—is being brought in as cheap fish, and that that is one of the reasons why


his right hon. Friend is making a welcome statement this afternoon?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What the hon. Gentleman says is based on allegations. It is an issue that we are discussing with Ministers in other EEC countries. As for the policing of regulations generally, it is significant that behind the number of convictions, about 1,800 boardings were made by United Kingdom fishery protection vessels in the course of the past year. That demonstrates great activity, to which I pay tribute.

Marginal Land

Mr. Watson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to have completed the identification and classification of marginal land.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): We have firmly committed ourselves to doing a survey. How long it will take will depend on a number of factors. Staff to do the survey will not become available before the summer, when the new simplified grant scheme announced by my right hon. Friend on 31 January will be introduced.

Mr. Watson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the National Farmers Union is currently campaigning for some degree of special assistance to be given to farmers on marginal land? Will he inform the House whether he is likely to agree, at least in principle, with the objects of that campaign?

Mr. Wiggin: My right hon. Friend said in his statement on 1 February 1980 that it was his intention to seek to quantify this problem, at the request of the NFU. It is in response to that statement that my Department is seeking to work out the precise line.

Mr. Foster: Is the Minister aware that there is widespread anger throughout Durham and North Yorkshire over the delay of these designations? Is he aware that incomes have been reduced substantially over the past two years, and that there are instances of marginal land farmers being eligible for family income supplement?

Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman should direct the anger of those farmers

towards the previous Labour Government, who did nothing about this issue. In seeking to quantify and delineate the areas concerned we are making a substantial step forward. I hope that the farmers represented by the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that.

Mr. Farr: What is the purpose of the survey? Would not those who are to be employed to carry out the survey be better employed in productive work elsewhere?

Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend cannot have it all ways. There are some good arguments in favour of determining whether there is any way of identifying those who, perhaps, have some restrictions on the productivity of their land and who do not receive aid under the less favoured areas directive. I am sure that all those with land of that nature will agree that the Government are proceeding in a proper manner.

Green Top Milk

Mr. Cryer: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to make a statement on the supply of green top milk.

Mr. Peter Walker: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) on 7 March.

Mr. Cryer: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that earlier reply was welcome confirmation of the policies being considered by the previous Labour Government? Is he prepared to make another urgent statement about grant aid for pasteurisation machinery, an issue that especially concerns small businesses? Will he consider tightening the licensing system so that when grant assistance for pasteurisation machinery is given small businesses are not driven out of existence by cowboy operators?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman referred to a confirmation of the previous Government's policy. In fact, our policy is a total contradiction of the Labour Government's policy. It will allow the 1½ million people who enjoy drinking this milk to continue to do so. We shall be making an announcement soon on pasteurisation grants. We recognise the importance of encouraging and helping it.

Mr. Woolmer: I welcome the Minister's statement that the sale of unpasteurised milk is to be banned through schools and shops. Does he recognize that a considerable number of people are still left at risk? For example, is he aware that in a village near Leeds the present policy will leave unprotected 500 people out of a population of 900 subject to a serious risk of illness? Will the Minister indicate when he hopes the phasing out of the sale of unpasteurised milk will be completed? Will he ensure that farmers are encouraged to take up the new grants, even where they are selling milk through their own outlets?

Mr. Walker: I guess that the date will be as soon as the last of the existing five-year producer-retailer licences expires, which is about the middle of 1985. We have changed the rule about labelling. There is a body of opinion, which I would not wish to dispute, which feels that, as well as some potential disadvantages with this type of milk, there are some potential advantages.

Mr. Body: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many thousands who enjoy drinking green top milk and who consider it to be much better than other types of milk? Does he understand that they will resent it very much if there is any more interference?

Mr. Walker: Yes. This is why our announcement that green top milk could continue, with the appropriate labelling and so forth, was widely welcomed in the areas where it is drunk.

Pig Industry

Mr. Newens: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is yet satisfied that the competition faced by the British pig industry within the EEC is fair; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: By three devaluations of the green pound last year the Government have improved substantially the competitive position and prospects of the United Kingdom pig industry.

Mr. Newens: Does the Minister recognise that his policy has utterly failed to stop the sharp decline in the price of pigmeat since December? Will he further

recognise that forecasts indicate that the price will continue to decline, together with the size of the pig breeding herd, unless some drastic action is taken immediately? Will he seek to introduce grants and to recalculate MCAs to provide the same basis for pigmeat as exists for cereals if he wants our efficient industry to survive against the totally unfair competition which it is forced to stand up to?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that the slight weakening of the market in recent months reflects a seasonal trend. Secondly, all those who have to forecast the state of the pig market forecast a stronger market for the end of the year. Thirdly, under the previous Labour Government MCAs were £231 a tonne 12 months ago compared with nil today.

Mr. Hill: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not merely a matter of MCAs? Another factor is the lack of profitability for the pig farmer due to the cost of feedstuffs from the wholesale merchants. Is he convinced that the price of feed-stuffs to the pig farmer is controlled? Is he aware that there have been several price increases over the past few months?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I ask my hon. Friend to recognise that figures from the Meat and Livestock Commission, which carries out costings, indicate that the pig industry has returned into profit in recent months. Secondly, I ask my hon. Friend to recognise that when we obtained the latest devaluation of the green pound on pigmeat, the devaluation on cereals—which is the main input of pig producers—was delayed until the beginning of the cereal year, namely, at harvest time this year. To that extent pig producers have another advantage that was not available to them previously.

Mr. Needham: In the light of unfair competition facing pigmeat processors, do the Government have any plans to make finance available, either through the EEC or through other sources, to help the industry reinvest? Does my hon. Friend agree that the main cause of the unfair competition was the failure of the previous Labour Government sufficiently to devalue the green pound?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In some areas—


not least in his constituency—there are problems for processing firms. There is, before the Council of Ministers, a structures package in which there is a sum of money available to help pig processors in the United Kingdom. As that package progresses, we shall bear in mind the point that my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend agree that the level of the pig breeding herd now shows signs of an increase? Does not that point to a return of confidence, which has been brought about by the removal of the green pound differential?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It seems that the pig herd is steadying. At this early stage it would not be right to read too much into that. The pig industry has been at a deep competitive disadvantage over recent years. It will take time for that to be put right.

Milk Marketing Board

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he will meet the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board.

Mr. Peter Walker: I shall be doing so tomorrow.

Sir A. Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision on green top milk will be warmly welcomed throughout Wales both by producer-retailers and by their satisfied customers? Does he agree that the real threat to the future continuation of the delivery of fresh milk on the doorstep is pressure, especially from consumer organisations, for the availability of UHT milk in supermarkets? Does he agree that such milk is unfit for human consumption?

Mr. Walker: I know that the news about green top milk was welcomed in Wales. I realise that there are a number of threats to retail distribution of milk. The doorstep distribution of milk is a vital and important institution in this country. It is vital in terms of jobs and social service and it is important for the sales of liquid milk in the United Kingdom. I hope, therefore, that whenever consumer organisations blast off about that they will recognise—whatever case they are advocating—the potential dangers and implications for doorstep distribution. As far as the drinkability

of certain forms of milk is concerned, all I can say is that I do not like it myself.

Mr. John Home Robertson: When the Minister meets the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board will he explain to him the utter perversity of a Governmernt who propose to run down supplies of milk to schools at a time when the European Community is prepared to pay four-fifths of the cost of that milk?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. The Government give freedom to local authorities to decide these matters.

Mr. Gummer: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board will he point out to him that it is unacceptable that its subsidiary, Dairy Crest, should force retailers to sell milk in cartons instead of in returnable bottles? Is he aware that returnable bottles do not increase the constant waste of natural resources and they are cheaper than the cartons now being foisted upon the public?

Mr. Walker: I shall look into that point.

Mr. Torrey: When the Minister meets the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, despite what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), will he at least undertake to discuss with the chairman the MMB plan to get £60 million of our money back from the EEC to ensure that the nation's schoolchildren can have cheap milk?

Mr. Walker: Yes. I have already had a dialogue with the chairman of the MMB and the president of the NFU on this topic. They are now considering further potential plans on this matter. I hope that they will be successful.

Council of Agriculture Ministers

Mr. Meacher: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet his EEC counterparts.

Mr. Peter Walker: When I attend the Agricultural Council on 26 and 27 March.

Mr. Meacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that French action over lamb curbs—with the apparent unenforceability of redress by the Commission—is; a


textbook lesson on why French politicking rather than strict British compliance with the legalities is the right way to deal with the Common Market? When will the British Government use directly applicable law to settle this matter immediately in the French courts, or else use French tactics to resolve some of the bigger CAP and budget issues, where we have much more justice on our side?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is the last person from whom I would take advice on how to deal with the Common Market. I do not believe that the French are gaining any advantage from their current posture. At the last Council of Ministers meeting the French were condemned by the other eight Ministers for their action. The Community has taken out an interim injunction against France and I believe that that course will prove to be in the British interest. It would be easy for me to announce speedy retaliation—doubtless to loud cheers from the House—but I believe that that would destroy Europe. That is probably what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Mr. Lang: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposed EEC co-responsibility levy and super levy are entirely unacceptable in this country because they would militate strongly against the larger and more efficient herds?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. We made that clear at the last Council meeting.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Secretary of State be taking up with his counterparts in the EEC the plight of our glasshouse growers and the unfair competition that they face from Holland and France? Will he give the growers some kind of heating subsidy or at least ask for fair terms?

Mr. Walker: I raised this matter at the last Council meeting. As a result, the Commission is immediately looking at the varying fuel subsidies throughout Europe to establish a similar pattern throughout the Community. We have urged speedy action which I hope will quickly ensue.

Mr. Heller: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman will not take advice from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). Is he prepared to take advice from me? The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I urged my own Government to take precisely the sort of

measures suggested by my hon. Friend. The Government did not take my advice at that time and we are now in something of a mess as a result. Would it not be a good idea if the Government were at least to accept that advice now and take some retaliatory action? We might then end up in a good position in relation to the EEC.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am always willing and eager to listen to him. However I find it difficult to decide whether the last Government might have done even worse if they had taken his advice.

Mr. Stanbrook: At a time when we need all the help we can get from our European partners in securing a reduction in our budget contribution is it wise to be so unsympathetic to the French?

Mr. Walker: This is the second time that my hon. Friend has tried that particular line of argument. He should ponder how it is that it is not only Britain that is attacking the French. Seven other nations in the Community, and the Commission, are all agreed that the French Government could, if they wished, support their own sheep producers legally and effectively. I suggest that, if my hon. Friend is really interested in the future role of France in the Community, he should lecture them and not us.

National Farmers Union

Mr. Best: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will meet the President of the National Farmers Union.

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects next to meet the President of the National Farmers Union.

Mr. Peter Walker: I expect to meet the president of the National Farmers Union on 17 March.

Mr. Best: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the president of the NFU the concern of Anglesey farmers about milk surpluses? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House today what proposals he has made to the Commission for reducing the milk surpluses without unfairly discriminating against farmers in this country?

Mr. Walker: My main proposal—and we are the only country advocating it—is that there should be no increase in the price of milk.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Canavan.

Mr. Canavan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I always call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) knows now that he will be called.

Mr. Brown: Will my right hon. Friend draw to the attention of the NFU the progress he is making with the European Commission in discussions concerning sugar quotas?

Mr. Walker: At the last Council meeting there was an agreement that the Commission would put forward new proposals on sugar quotas which will almost certainly contain an improvement upon the last settlement and recommendations as far as Britain is concerned. We shall consider them when they are received. We are getting nearer to the essential position where cuts in United Kingdom quotas are fair and are no worse than those of other countries.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the opinion expressed by the NFU that the Government's proposals to remove the legal rights of children to free school meals, milk and transport could have a devastating effect upon working people in rural areas, and, indeed on the agricultural economy in general—a fact appreciated even by some Members of the House of Lords—will the Minister support those Members of his own party who want the Government to delete those obnoxious clauses from the Education (No. 2) Bill?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. In reply to an earlier question I said that I have written to the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board and to the president of the NFU suggesting further discussions about the manner in which it might be possible to take advantage of Community financing.

Mr. Peter Fraser: When my right hon. Friend meets the president of the NFU will he stick to his guns about the need for the farming organisations in this country to improve their promotional and

marketing activities? If they need any evidence of what can be achieved would he draw to the attention of those organisations what has been done by the Scottish Seed Potato Association?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. What is true of British agriculture is that there are some remarkable success stories in marketing. There is no doubt that the potential of British agriculture would be considerably enhanced if we concentrated far more on improving our marketing systems. There are a number of areas in which that will take place.

Mr. Newens: Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the president of the NFU the views he expressed to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) about the difficulties of the glasshouse industry? The Minister said that he was hoping to get the question of unfair competition speedily resolved. Is he aware that many people who are concerned with the glasshouse industry have been waiting since we went into the EEC for those difficulties to be resolved? In those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman see that those who are dealing with the issue get a move on?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I am sorry that the last Government were so complacent on the issue.

Mr. Bob Dunn: When my right hon. Friend meets the president of the NFU will he ask him to prepare evidence about the unfair practices in France and Holland, which are to the detriment of horticulturists in North Kent and elsewhere?

Mr. Walker: In fairness to the Dutch industry, there is no evidence that the practices are unfair. The Dutch Government have acted within the guidelines issued by the Commission. They are using cheap gas which is genuinely available in Holland. It is not subsidised. There can be no complaint in principle about that. The Germans have recently obtained a special concession. Because of that the Commission has agreed to try to develop a unified system in Europe.

Surplus Agricultural Produce

Mr. Spearing: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate in sterling of the amount likely to be spent by the EEC


during 1980 on the disposal, storage, or subsidised sale of all surplus agricultural produce; and what is his estimate for cereals, sugar and milk products, respectively.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is too early to make firm estimates, but in its revised draft budget for 1980 the Commission's estimates for export refunds, subsidised sales within the Community and intervention purchase and storage total £5,300 million. Of this, milk and milk products account for £2,500 million, cereals for £1,000 million and sugar for £400 million.

Mr. Spearing: Can the Minister confirm that none of the surpluses arises from United Kingdom activities? Will he confirm that the United Kingdom's share of the costs of disposing of the surpluses is about the same as the net budget deficit? Is it not clear, therefore, that virtually all our monetary and budget disadvantage in the EEC come from the CAP? Is it not time to decide to get out before the going gets even worse?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is precisely because of the need to control the surpluses that we are opposing price increases for those products which are in surplus. The price increases last year, when the Conservative Government were in power, were lower than those achieved when the Labour Party was in power.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom dairy industry does not contribute at all to the surplus of dairy products within the EEC? Will my hon. Friend ensure that the Government do not make any concession to the EEC in respect of the implementation of a co-responsibility levy? Will my hon. Friend seek to persuade the EEC that bulk sale of liquid milk through the daily pinta is the best way to remove the surplus and that, therefore, we must not damage our daily pinta in any way?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend is right. That is why we are closely questioning the type of co-responsibility levy which the Commission proposes. The effect of that levy is to tax all countries and all producers, regardless of whether they contribute to the overall surplus. The United Kingdom milk producers are not contributing to the overall surplus.

Mr. Jay: How much of the £5 billion is being used to subsidise food exports to the Soviet Union at the expense of the British taxpayer?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as we have made clear on a number of occasions, we oppose the use of funds to subsidise exports to Russia and Eastern Europe. We shall continue to do so.

Herbicide 2,4,5-T

Mr. John Home Robertson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice is available to him on the safety of chemicals used in connection with agricultural production.

Mr. Wiggin: Thanks to the efforts, experience and stature of the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides, the Government have the best advice that is available.

Mr. Robertson: Why do the Minister and the advisory committee assume that a chemical is safe until someone else can prove that it is dangerous? Will the Minister review the composition of the advisory committee and include in its membership representatives of the agriculture industry and the Health and Safety Executive? In the meantime, will he suspend the use of 2,4,5-T in view of evidence presented to him yesterday by the farmworkers' union?

Mr. Wiggin: No one knows the benefits of pesticides better than the hon. Gentleman. He knows that the strictest possible tests on all chemicals and medicines are conducted on animals. The committee investigates any complaint. I remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Minister met representatives of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers on 16 November when they intimated that they had complaints about the chemical. Only yesterday did their report arrive marked, perhaps inappropriately "Not a minute longer".

Mr. Cryer: Can the Minister confirm that the Advisory Committee on Pesticides was not aware of the Swedish experience—[Interruption]. This is a serious matter for agricultural workers. It is no laughing matter and the comfortable Members on the Tory Benches


should be aware of this. Does the Minister accept that the experience in Sweden of agricultural workers and people handling 2,4,5,-T in suffering soft tissue cancer was not taken into account by the committee? In conjunction with the Health and Safety Executive will the Government take urgent action to suspend the use of that chemical now?

Mr. Wiggin: I assure the House that any evidence, from whatever source, in this country or anywhere in the world, on this or any other approved chemical, is immediately examined. The Advisory Committee on Pesticides is examining the details of the Swedish case. Not all the facts are yet available.

Mr. Mason: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread concern about the use of 2,4,5-T? Is he aware that it has been banned by trade unions, workers and local authorities? Since the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers has presented a new dossier to the Ministry and the Department has agreed that the advisory committee should examine it—and we regard that as a review—why cannot the Minister advise everyone to stop using it until the review is completed?

Mr. Wiggin: I doubt whether we could have responded any faster. My right hon. Friend the Minister made a statement yesterday saying that he will meet the chairman of the advisory committee together with the president of the NUAAW within a few days. I am mystified by the rationality of the trade union decision to stop using the chemical. There is no proper scientific evidence on which to base such a decision. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that his Government relied on the evidence of the advisory committee. It has an international reputation which the Government intend to support.

Mr. Michael Morris: Does my hon. Friend agree that the pharmaceutical and chemical industries are two of the most honest, straightforward and genuine industries? Hon. Members may laugh but they are serious industries. Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be a sad day for the House and the country when reactions are based on rumours? Does he agree that it is wiser for the House to listen to the considered opinion of

those who investigate such matters in depth?

Mr. Wiggin: It is the job of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides to assess the evidence and not to rely on the good will of anybody. We are dealing with a scientific matter. Professor Kilpatrick and his highly qualified committee do a very good job indeed. I have no evidence that anyone in the world is better qualified to do it.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Department has received from the Agricultural Research Council about the use of the herbicide 2,4,5,-T.

Mr. Wiggin: The council is represented on the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and it contributes thereby to the committee's advice to the Government.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that the compound 2,4,5-T has been banned in Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and other countries? Is he further aware that there has been serious public criticism of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, and that there is a strong case for reconstituting that committee along the lines of the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee to include trade union representatives and other representatives of the public interest? Does he accept that his complacency on this matter is not shared on the Labour side of the House?

Mr. Wiggin: The chemical is permitted in six countries of the EEC as well as the United Kingdom. It is also permitted in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It is not banned in the USA. In regard to the composition of the advisory committee, I cannot conceive for one moment that the sort of people that the hon. Gentleman has in mind are any better qualified than the extremely well-qualified and knowledgeable scientists who serve on the committee—who are totally independent—and who advise the Government on this important matter.

Dr. M. S. Miller: But if there is any doubt about the toxicity or otherwise of the substance—and as there are other substances that can do the job equally well—why does not the Minister issue instructions to stop the use of that chemical until tests have proved conclusively that it is not a dangerous substance?

Mr. Wiggin: There have been very many tests carried out. The hon. Gentleman will know that under the previous Administration the matter was considered eight or nine times. The only evidence that has not yet been considered is that which was provided yesterday. It is already being examined.

Milk Premium Scheme

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to deal with the unfavourable position of United Kingdom farmers in relation to their EEC counterparts under the EEC non-marketing of milk premium scheme.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The rules governing the non-marketing and conversion premium schemes, including the rates of premium payable, are fixed by Community regulations. These do not draw any distinction between producers in different member States, and I am not aware that my Department is applying them in such a way as to put United Kingdom farmers at a relative disadvantage.

Mr. Baker: Is my hon. Friend aware that the treatment of the premia in the hands of the recipients is different for tax purposes in Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands? Is he further aware that that puts our dairy farmers who take the premia at a considerable disadvantage? Will he urgently take up the matter with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer so as to make possible alterations to the tax system to achieve an adjustment? Will he also agree to take measures in concert with our Common Market partners?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As my hon. Friend correctly said, the matter of taxation is one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend must remember two things. First, there are other countries in the EEC which, for tax purposes, treat the premia in exactly the same way as we do. Secondly, I hope that he will acknowledge that in 1978 it was agreed to make these payments by annual instalments, which goes some way towards meeting the point that he makes.

Mr. Gummer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the administration of the premia

is a difficult and complicated matter, and that sometimes it appears that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Britain is more strict and tougher about the exact interpretation of the rules than appears to be the case elsewhere? Is he further aware that that policy is harmful to our industry as it tries to work out the system? Will he take care to ensure that the Minister gives dairy farmers as much leeway as is humanly possible?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hope that the officials in my Department endeavour to apply the rules in the fairest possible way. If my hon. Friend has evidence of unfairness in any way at all I should be happy to take up the matter.

European Community (Cost of Membership)

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the forecast reduction in the combined cost of EEC membership and support for agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry for 1979–80 compared with 1974–75 at 1979 survey figures.

Mr. Peter Walker: £536 million, according to the latest White Paper on public expenditure. But this reduction is more than accounted for by the fall of £1,007 million in expenditure on food subsidies.

Mr. Howell: While supporting the Government in their attempts to achieve better terms for our membership of the EEC, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he believes that sufficient credit has been given to the saving that has accrued to the taxpayer following our membership?

Mr. Walker: I read with interest the letter that my hon. Friend wrote to The Times. Although his letter showed that there had been a fall of £536 million in the costs, if the eradication of the food subsidy programme under the previous Administration is eliminated, a rise of £471 million is shown, which is a substantial sum.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Is it not a fact that food subsidies meant that the housewife was able to buy food more cheaply? Is the Minister aware that because, under the present arrangements, we are contributing


£1·3 billion to the EEC, the housewife is paying more for food? She is also paying taxes. Is it not a fact that the food purchased through intervention is of an inferior quality to that which the housewife can buy in the supermarket?

Mr. Walker: There is no doubt that we are paying an unfair proportion of the cost. That is why the Government are endeavouring to bring about a major renegotiation of the budget.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Strang: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has received from the fishing industry for limited financial support; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Myles: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present state of the British fishing industry.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend proposes to make a statement later this afternoon on the question of aid for the United Kingdom fishing industry.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Gentlemen will be kind enough to wait, I shall call them when the statement is made. Those who are called now cannot have great expectations later.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Has the Minister seen the Scottish Select Committee report on the question of levies on transshipped fish, and the need for legislation to correct an anomaly? When will that be acted upon?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman should await the statement. The question that he has raised is under consideration.

PITMEDDAN

Mr. McQuarrie: asked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit the vilage of Pitmeddan.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. McQuarrie: While I regret that my right hon. Friend cannot visit Pitmeddan, where she would have been most welcome, may I ask her to assure the House that she will in no way trade away any of the farming or fishing interests in her determination to ensure that the overall payments made to the EEC are reduced?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. As he knows, we are proceeding with the EEC negotiations on the basis of the merit of each particular subject. I am very happy to assure him that we shall not accept any proposals either for farming or fishing that will be damaging to British interests.

NORFOLK

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Prime Minister if she plans to visit North Norfolk.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Howell: May I assure my right hon. Friend that she will receive a very enthusiastic welcome when she visits Norfolk. While we, and practically the whole country, support her determination that the Government should not become involved in industrial disputes, will she give an assurance that she will stop the payment of any benefits to strikers? If the latest proposals, that there should be a deemed amount paid to strikers by the unions, were put into operation, will she confirm that instead of paying £6 million to strikers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I treat constituency questions as such. That was an open question, not a constituency question. May we move on?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we made it clear in our manifesto that we believe that those who are prepared to infict hardship upon the community by going on strike should not expect automatically to be fully supported by that community. Work is under way to alter the supplementary benefits paid to strikers. It is proceeding well. It will mean fresh legislation, and I hope that we shall be in a position to make an announcement within the next few weeks.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. John Townend: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 13 March.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today I shall be leaving for a visit to Yorkshire and Humberside.

Mr. Townend: In view of the statements in today's press to the effect that France is taking a tougher line on the British contribution to the EEC budget, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that the public are becoming heartily sick of the French attitude to Britain, especially the continuing illegal discrimination against British lamb and Scotch whisky? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that she will have the overwhelming support of both sides of the House, in addition to that of the public, in any retaliatory action that she deems necessary?

The Prime Minister: I have seen the reports to which my hon. Friend referred. Bearing in mind that France has always been resolute in defending her interests, she really cannot complain if we are equally resolute in defending our interests.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Prime Minister find time today to reconsider the vindictive action that she is taking against the British athletes who are working in the public sector, bearing in mind that the Olympic movement is the possession of the whole world, and that a boycott of the Moscow Games will do more damage to the Olympic movement and to young athletes throughout the world than it will to the entrenched geriatrics in the Kremlin?

The Prime Minister: The Olympic movement is one which should be founded and is founded, upon peace between different nations. The USSR has hardly observed that necessity for peace. For that reason we are advising athletes not to participate in the Moscow Olympic Games. Many other countries are taking the same action. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it would not

make sense to advise athletes not to go and then to give special leave to civil servants, over and above their annual leave, so that they could go. For that reason we shall not give special leave either to them or to Service pensonnel.

Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend's meetings with other Ministers include one involving the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence in order to assure herself, and, perhaps thereafter, to reassure the House, that there is sufficient co-operation between those two important Departments with regard to civil defence?

The Prime Minister: I am very much aware that a number of hon. Members think that it is time to spend more money on civil defence and to have stronger civil defence forces. But as my hon. Friend knows, we must choose between priorities, and at the moment I can hold out no immediate hope. However, my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence and myself do meet from time to time to discuss the matter.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Following press reports that the Prime Minister has referred the AGR nuclear power station projects at Heysham and Torness in my constituency to the Think Tank, will she assure the House unequivocally that she does not intend to pull a fast one by siting cheap, dangerous and nasty PWR Harrisburg-type stations on those sites?

The Prime Minister: We are proposing to look at the capital programme in the light of the latest forecasts, and we must look at the capital programme because of the latest forecasts for the electricity industry. We shall look at the PWR, as we shall look at any other nuclear reactor, on the basis of safety. However, the programme is under reconsideration, and we are looking at the future of the two AGRs.

TUC

Mr. Best: asked the Prime Minister when she expects next to meet the Trades Union Congress.

The Prime Minister: No dates have yet been arranged.

Mr. Best: When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC will she impress upon it


the basic democratic right of every trade unionist to have a secret ballot? Moreover, will she especially stress that point to trade unionists who belong to the ISTC, in view of the overwhelming evidence that members of that union want to get back to work following the board's latest offer?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, the BSC suggested that there should be a ballot of everyone who works for BSC. I am sure that many people believe that that is the right thing to do, in view of the fact that those who work for the corporation are now bearing the brunt of the hardship. We believe that many of them would like to express their views on whether or not to accept the offer.

Mr. Tinn: Will the Prime Minister study the anual report of ICI, particularly the section dealing with man-made fibres, as it highlights the current problems experienced by the industry arising from United States' competition, which is based not on any labour productivity advantage but on America's relatively low price of oil? In view of the price of our oil, is it not absurd that our industry should face that sort of competition? What action does she propose to take to ensure that British industry, particularly petrochemicals, will benefit from North Sea oil?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the problem which the hon. Gentleman has raised, namely, that by underpricing on oil and gas, the United States gives a great advantage to any industry which either has those things as its main feedstock or which uses a large amount of oil in producing the product. Of course, it was that which led my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade to go to the Community to ask for some restrictions on the import of a certain amount of synthetic yarn. We do urge the Americans to bring their oil and gas up to world prices, because that is the only fundamental solution to the problem.

Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she has not ruled out taking action against trade union funds if the present legislation does not prove to be effective?

The Prime Minister: It would be best if we tried to get the Employment Bill

through first and to see whether that works. To date, the trade unions have honoured an injunction which the court granted against one of their members, and I hope that that will continue.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Prime Minister find an early opportunity to tell the TUC that the Government will stop sitting on the sidelines in the steel dispute and will take a positive initiative to achieve a solution, before the steel industry in this country is finally crucified?

The Prime Minister: If at the end of the day, the management and those who work in the industry cannot reach agreement on their differences, it does not augur well for the future of the steel industry. They must reach a settlement themselves, because it is the management and those who work in the industry who must run it in the future. They must take responsibility for it themselves.

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Atkins: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read reports in the daily press of the 178 per cent. rise in the rates of Stockton, which is Labour-controlled? Will she draw any conclusions about comparisons between Labour authorities and those careful authorities, such as Preston?

The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) on Preston's excellent record in holding its district rate at, I believe, 8p in the pound. That contrasts very favourably with Stockton, which I believe has put up its district rate by 178 per cent. I notice that that accords very similarly with the experience of authorities in Greater London, where the top 10 authorities which have put up their rates the most are Labour-controlled, and the bottom 10 which have put up their rates least are all Conservative-controlled.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Has the Prime Minister noted the recent fluctuations in exchange rates? Does she recall that last autumn the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about the benefits that would he obtained from a high level of


the pound in world markets? What have those benefits been?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, when the exchange rate is high, raw materials that are invoiced in dollars must come in at lower cost. That has been of considerable help to those industries which use raw materials and semi-fabricated components. Had they not had that help to counteract the high increase in wages, prices would be even higher.

Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend take some time today to reflect further on the strange attitude of the TUC towards secret ballots? Will she consider the possibility of putting our proposals on industrial reform to the nation in a referendum?

The Prime Minister: I believe that it is more and more widely felt that those who belong to trade unions, or those who are on strike, should have the right to say whether they wish to go on strike, or whether they wish to continue on strike. I believe that they should be able to do so by secret ballot. I think that view will become more widespread, because the secret ballot is already practised in some unions. As to industrial relations reform, I believe that the present Bill will go through, but I do not think

that we shall need to refer that subject to a referendum.

Mr. Bidwell: Why, in view of the grave economic difficulties facing the nation, is the right hon. Lady so reluctant to meet the TUC? Did she notice that last Sunday there was the mightiest turnout in trade union history against the Government?

The Prime Minister: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not reluctant to meet the TUC. I have met it from time to time and I shall meet it again a: NEDC. I am only too delighted to talk to the TUC, just as I talk to the CBI. I noticed that the turnout last Sunday was so very much less than had been expected.

Mr. Adley: Since the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) is so keen—as we all are—that my right hon. Friend should talk to the TUC, may I ask her to make clear to Mr. Basnett, Mr. Evans, Mr. Scargill and others that she will do nothing to discourage them from marching or demonstrating? Does she not agree that such marches merely demonstrate to the British public the face of Britain's alternative Government?

The Prime Minister: People are fully at liberty to march or demonstrate as long as the police give their consent under the Public Order Act.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. James Callaghan: May I ask the Leader of the House—[Interruption.] In case the Leader of the House did not hear my question because of the hullabaloo made by Conservative Members, may I ask him to state the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 MARCH—Supply [14th Allotted Day]: Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the problems of the North-West and afterwards on the West Midlands, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Debate on a motion relating to the Olympic Games.
TUESDAY 18 MARCH and WEDNESDAY 19 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Social Security Bill.
At the end on Wednesday:
Remaining stages of the New Hebrides Bill [Lords.]
THURSDAY 20 MARCH—Debate on European Community documents Nos. 4896/80, addenda I and II, 5069/80 on agricultural prices and markets, 11337/79 and addendum I, 4885/80 on common agricultural policy, R/769/78 on sheepmeat, 5720/79 and corrigendum I 8611/79 on agricultural structures, 8248/79 on liqueur wines, and 485/80 on the budget.
FRIDAY 21 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 24 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Transport Bill.
The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Easter Adjournment on Thursday 3 April until Monday 14 April.

Debates on European Community Documents

The relevant published reports of the European Legislation Committee are as follows:

R/769/78 (Sheepmeat): 36th Report, H.C. 29-XXXVI, 1977–78.

5720 / 79 (Agricultural Structures): 2nd Report, H.C. 159-II, 1979–80, para.1.

8611/79 (Agricultural Structures): 8th Report, H.C. 159-VIII, 1979–80, para 2.

8248/79 (Liqueur Wines): 10th Report, H.C. 159-X, 1979–80, para.1.

4845/80 (Community Budget): 20th Report, H.C. 159-XX, 1979–80 para.1.

A typescript report on the remaining agricultural documents is expected to be available in the Vote Office before the debate.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it not astonishing that the House is being asked to consider the Olympic Games in a debate that will take place after the full day has run, at 10 o'clock at night, although the Government say that it is so important? Why are the Government trying to smuggle a debate through in that way? Why do the Government not put this debate on at a reasonable time, so that the House can discuss the issue? I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. First, will he please table a motion today stating how long the debate will last? Secondly, will there be a free vote?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The right hon. Gentleman will know that discussions took place through the usual channels about alternative dates. This is the earliest date that we could find. The debate must be arranged before the conference that is to be held on 17 and 18 March. That conference will include several countries as well as Britain. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will then have the advantage of knowing the will of the House.
The wording of the motion will be put down later today. It will be a simple motion about the invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent unsuitability of Britain's taking part in the Olympic Games. We expect the debate to run for three hours. I am happy to assure the right hon. Gentleman that as the debate will primarily give the House an opportunity to express its mind on that issue, the Conservative Party will be given a free vote.

Mr. Callaghan: Will that really be the form of the motion? If the Soviet Union were to change its attitude, would the Government or House not wish to take a different view. The Leader of the House told us that the motion will provide an opportunity to condemn the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. Of course, we all deplore that. In view of the great concern that has


been shown, the distress that has been caused to many athletes, and the divisions that have occurred in the West on this issue, the Government should not try to smuggle a debate through at such a late time. There should be a proper and full debate. It should not be limited to three hours. Such a difficult and thorny subject should be debated thoroughly. At the moment this issue is leading the Government into some petty forms of tyranny.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It would not be right to debate the terms of that motion during business questions and before the motion has been tabled. I wished to assist the right hon. Gentleman and I therefore communicated to him in advance the general form of the motion. The motion will be tabled later today. Bearing in mind the wide publicity that this subject has achieved, there is no substance in accusing the Government of trying to smuggle this motion through the House. I accept that the debate will not be held at an ideal time. However, it is important that the will of the House should be expressed before the conference takes place.

Mr. Callaghan: As Leader of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the inconvenience—some might say contempt of the House—that has been caused by the Government's failure to produce the public expenditure White Paper? For years that White Paper has been produced in January and February in order that it might be debated in the House. We have now learned from press leaks that the White Paper will be published on Budget day. No announcement has been made, and the House has been treated with less than respect. All hon. Members who care about such things should say whether they think it fair that a document of such size should be published after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has completed his statement on Budget day. Will the Leader of the House ask his colleagues to consider this issue? The House should have a chance of considering the expenditure proposals before the taxation proposals are announced on 26 March.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly pass on those views to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Surely there is a logical connec-

tion between the public expenditure White Paper and the Budget. I cannot give an exact date. However, it is not unreasonable to consider the two together.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In view of the words that the Leader of the House twice used in regard to the purpose of the motion on Monday, will he confirm that the will of the House, as it affects the citizen, can be made known only by an Act of Parliament?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that that is entirely accurate. The House can impose legally binding obligations on citizens only by an Act of Parliament. However, the wishes of the House can be made known by a resolution.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: When will the House have an opportunity to consider the recommendations of the Services Committee concerning facilities for European Members, and when will a decision be taken?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That report of the Services Committee was published only today. I believe that it would be a good idea to have an interval in which hon. Members can reflect on these proposals and make their views known to me, amongst others.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Following the question from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), will the Leader of the House tell us whether any finding made in this House that is not an Act of Parliament is binding on the citizens of the country?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The only way that there can be a legal obligation is by an Act of Parliament. Parliament has a legislative function, but there is another most important function of Parliament, which is that the House of Commons should express its mind on the great issues of the day. That is why we have debates. That is why, on this most important question of the future of the Olympic Games, it is right that the House of Commons should express its mind.

Mr. Higgins: In view of what my right hon. Friend says, does he agree that the objective of the Government must be to persuade sporting bodies to boycott the Moscow Olympics? Will that task of persuasion be helped by having a three-hour


debate, late at night? Will my right hon. Friend accept that we should give the matter the attention and importance that the athletes who are being asked to make a major sacrifice rightly deserve? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter? Will he carefully consider whether the motion should be tabled immediately in its precise terms, as the athletes are concerned that the Government are not doing everything within their power and that the athletes are being asked to bear the main burden? Such action would give us the opportunity to table amendments.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I know that my right hon. Friend feels strongly on this issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "We all do."]I have said that the motion will be tabled later today. It is important that this House should have the opportunity to express its view. I am sure that that will be taken into account by British athletes in making up their minds.

Mr. Mellish: Does the Leader of the House understand that the business for next week and the following weeks will be quite irrelevant unless he does something about the appalling conditions under which the staff of the Official Report are working? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, for example, that apart from reporting everything that is said on the Floor of the House, they also report the Committees, which sit in the mornings and afternoons, some even going into the evenings, when no refreshments are provided? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the Official Report is understaffed? What does he propose to do? Will he give the Official Report a Sub-Committee to assist the House of Commons Commission? Does he accept that it is about time the Official Report had the status and dignity that it deserves?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. It gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Hansard reporters and others, who, because of the record rate at which the Government are implementing their mandate from the electorate, are bearing a heavy burden. I have regular meetings to discuss the situation with regard to Hansard, and I have some hopes that within a reasonably short time I shall be able to announce proposals to improve the situation.

Mr. David Price: In respect of Mondays's business after 10 o'clock did I understand my right hon. Friend to suggest that the Government wish to hear the views of the House? If so, will my right hon. Friend accept that three hours after 10 o'clock is totally inadequate? Will he consider the matter again and rind time for at least a full day's debate?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be desirable to have a longer debate. However, I have indicated the importance of the House of Commons expressing its mind at a time when it can have a direct influence on Government policy.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the matter? We all accept that there are times when the House has to transact business in the small hours of the morning, but if, to use the right hon. Gentleman's own words, it is an important matter on which the House should declare its view, the country will not understand if we do that at 1 o'clock in the morning.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As I have indicated, I have sympathy with that view, but it is necessary to have an early debate on the matter.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware of growing public concern about the failure of the system of checking the safety of medical drugs in Britain? Is he aware of the American case, in which there are accusations that the British drug Debenox has caused malformations in young children? Irrespective of the outcome of that case, may we have a statement or a debate next week on the system of checking drugs in Great Britain?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The right hon. Gentleman raises a most important point. I shall take it up as a matter of urgency with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Kershaw: Is the Leader of the House aware that the report of the Select Committee on the Olympic Games is available in the Vote Office and that the evidence will be there at half-past five this afternoon?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making that announcement for me. I congratulate him on the speed with which his


Committee worked. The report will be relevant to the debate.

Mr. James Callaghan: In view of the non-party expression of opinion from all sides of the House about the importance of a full day's debate on the Moscow Olympics, is it necessary to have the Social Security Bill next Tuesday and Wednesday? Could we not debate the Olympic Games on one of those two days?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The conference to which I have referred is on Monday and Tuesday, 17 and 18 March. It would be open to complaint if the House expressed its view on the matter after decisions had been made.

Mr. Callaghan: With respect, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Olympic Games are a long way away? Will he further accept that I do not know, and I doubt whether the House knows, the status of that conference? Does he agree that it is not the last occasion on which the House can return to the subject? Will he reconsider the matter? Why is it necessary for the Government to know the opinion of the House on this occasion, when opinions have so far been freely expressed by Ministers without any difficulty?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the timing of the debate was discussed through the usual channels. Had there been agreement, it would have been possible to have another debate.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the House has spoken strongly this afternoon against a debate on the Olympic Games at a late hour on Monday? Will he therefore reconsider the matter, bearing in mind that the object of the exercise is to demonstrate to the public the views of the House? Will he accept that he now knows the views of the House? Will he choose a more convenient time for debate, which will have a greater impact on public opinion?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As I said, we made every effort, but we could not get agreement on a date.

Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether I heard his

statement correctly about next Thursday's debate on agricultural prices? Did he include document No. 4845/80, which deals with convergence and budgetary questions? Will he accept that that is an entirely different matter from agricultural prices?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is quite possible to have misunderstood me in the battery of figures that I had to give. Of the nine documents that I mentioned, eight directly concern agricultural policy. The ninth concerns the budgetary document, but 90 per cent. of the budget is concerned with agriculture.

Mr. Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the Leader of the Opposition appears to find intervening in business questions less humiliating than intervening in Prime Minister's questions? Before my right hon. Friend gives too much weight to the right hon. Gentleman's earlier intervention, may I mention that some of us believe that it is sensible and helpful for the Government's expenditure, income and tax estimates to be made known to the country simultaneously? However, in future years will the Government consider announcing them all in comparable money units?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly pass on that interesting suggestion to my right hon. and learned Friend the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to the question whether the Leader of the Opposition rises in business questions or in Prime Minister's questions, that is a matter for him. In my view, it should not be made a matter of reproach that he evidently considers business questions as interesting as Prime Minister's questions.

Mr. Ennals: Does the Leader of the House consider that he is properly fulfilling his function as Leader of the House—he is not Leader of one side of the House, but Leader of the whole House—in failing to respond to expressions from both sides of the House that the timing of the debate on the Olympic Games is not only unsatisfactory to the House but will be seen by the country as a ludicrous way of dealing with an important issue?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am, of course, aware that my job is Leader of the House. That is why I made every effort to see whether an agreement satisfactory to all sides of the House could be achieved.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend find time in the relatively near future for a debate on the despicable actions being followed by some trade unionists in their campaign against the Government? I refer particularly to the use of children by members of NUPE in Cheshire to advance their campaign and to a document describing my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as a vampire—a document handed to children—which urges parents to refuse to pay school transport charges if the Education (No. 2) Bill is implemented and becomes an Act of Parliament.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sure that the vast majority of trade unionists would not approve of the factual situation revealed by my hon. Friend. With regard to the appellation of "vampire", my right hon. Friend has been called much worse things. She is none the worse for it.

Mr. Freeson: With regard to the Olympic Games, will the Leader of the House defer action on Tuesday and Wednesday next week, on the Social Security Bill, the main purpose of which is to reduce pensions, and hold a debate on the Olympic Games on Tuesday, as my right hon. Friend suggests?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Alternatives were considered, but it was impossible to reach agreement.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a statement to follow. I propose to call four more hon. Members from either side of the House before moving on.

Mr. Emery: Will my right hon. Friend take account of the considerable feeling for a longer debate than the three hours until 1 o'clock in the morning? As there is such a response by the Opposition, will he extend an invitation to the Leader of the Opposition to give up half of his Supply day to enable us to debate the matter from 7 pm until, perhaps, midnight?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is an interesting suggestion. I am sure that it will come as no surprise to Opposition Members.

Mr. Jay: Why have the Government failed to publish not merely a public

expenditure White Paper but a defence White Paper at the normal time this year? Is there to be a defence debate?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes. We are to have a defence debate and publication of the White Paper in due course.

Mr. Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the impression that he has given that the reason why the House has to suffer the inconvenience of a debate on the Olympics at such an awkward time is the refusal of the Opposition to make available any of their time?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that I can be drawn into that kind of discussion.

Mr. James Callaghan: Is it not also clear that the Government tell us when we are to have Supply days?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not want to go into detail. It is part of the conventions of this House—

Mr. Orme: Tell the truth.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am telling the truth. That is possibly why the right hon. Gentleman does not believe me. He is not used to hearing it. It is fair to say that I made efforts to see whether agreement could be obtained. Those efforts did not meet with success. I do not wish to go further than that.

Mr. James Lamond: Is it not a remarkable commentary on the Government's priorities when the Leader of the House can find time for a debate on the Olympic boycott because Ministers must be armed with information about what he calls the will of the House before they go to a conference, and yet he repeatedly refused to arrange a debate about the stationing of nuclear weapons in this country before a Government Minister went to the appropriate NATO conference to make the decision?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that those are parallel matters. At least, they are of commensurate importance because each, in its own way, involves the future peace of the world.

Mr. Kilfedder: Does the Leader of the House not realise that Olympic athletes and their supporters will be fully entitled to disregard whatever wishes are expressed by the House in a debate that


lasts for only three hours after 10 pm on Monday? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that it is for the Government to provide proper and adequate time, as they are trying to impose upon us their tyrannical attitude regarding the Olympic Games despite the wishes of our people?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Government have made clear that there is no question of imposing a legal ban on athletes taking part in the Olympic Games, but they have also made clear that in their opinion Britain should not take part in the Games. This gives the House of Commons, also, the opportunity to express its mind. It is one of the traditional constitutional means for making expressions of public opinion.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Leader of the House aware that he is doing himself and the House a grave disservice by keeping his head down and going on with this debate on Monday night on such an important subject? How can he continue to pretend that the Government will take heed of what the House says on Monday night when three major decisions have already been taken by the Government? The Foreign Office has removed diplomatic assistance from the Olympic team. The Prime Minister, in her role as Minister for the Civil Service, has given instructions that no civil servant will be given special leave to take part. The Secretary of State for Defence has given instructions that no Service men will be allowed special leave to attend the Olympic Games. Is that an indication of the heed that the Government intend to take of the decision of the House?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The measures that the Government have taken with regard to the Civil Service and the Armed Forces is wholly consistent with Government policy that we should not take part officially in the Olympic Games. That is totally without prejudice to the decisions of individuals. The purpose of the debate on the Olympic Games is certainly for the Government to assess opinion in the House but, equally important, it is for the House to have an opportunity to express its mind, as the House of Commons, on this issue.

Mr. Moate: Will the Leader of the House say how and when he intends to make good the statement of the Minister

of Transport that the Government will abide by the will of the House on seat belts legislation? As the will of the House—I think he will agree—is shown in the substantial Second Reading majority and not in the sustained if rather poor-quality filibuster by a small handful of hon. Members, can he say how he intends to carry out the statement made by his right hon. Friend?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly refer that point to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. What happens to Private Members' Bills on this or any other subject is, of course, a matter for the House of Commons.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's inept handling of the Olympics boycott issue has seriously weakened the possibility of effective united action being taken in condemnation of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan? Will he not seek to atone, at least in some measure, for this inept handling by granting the united desire of the House, which is to have a full-length debate on the Olympics issue at a proper time?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Government and the Prime Minister have given a very clear lead not only to this country but to other nations. We took action early on this matter and other countries are now following our example.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you as the guardian of our rights. I believe that I heard the Leader of the House say during the course of these proceedings that should the House on Monday vote against British athletes going to Moscow the Government would not carry out the will of the House. Is it not the case that by issuing orders of ne exeat regno the Government should not prevent or make a crime of the act of athletes going to Moscow? Are the Government really saying in advance that they will disobey the will of the House should the will of the House be that way?

Mr. Speaker: That is for the Government. It has nothing to do with me in terms of ruling on the Standing Orders of the House.

Mr. Lawrence: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon.


Member not only to accuse his hon. Friends of a filibuster but to say that it was a filibuster of poor quality? Apart from being the grossest slander upon myself and those of my hon. Friends who supported me, is it in order to make such an observation when nearly 590 hon. Members did not turn up to support the closure, which adequately reflects the opinion in this country of that rather contemptible Bill?

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a matter connected with the debate on Monday? I understand that our rules now preclude the possibility of raising an application under Standing Order No. 9 on a Friday morning. If that is so, and even if an application under Standing Order No. 9 were to be raised on Monday and you were to accept it, there would still be no possibility of the debate taking place until the Tuesday. If I am right, and if the House wishes to debate this matter before the conference to which my right hon. Friend referred has taken place, would it be sufficient for an application under Standing Order No. 9 to be made to you this afternoon?

Mr. Speaker: Standing Orders with regard to emergency debates are not intended merely to provide a debate if the Government have not given time for a debate. That is not the main purpose of Standing Order No. 9, as the House knows. However, if I accept the motion for an energency debate on Monday it would be possible to have the debate that night. But I do not want the House to be misled into thinking that I am encouraging such an application.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The whole House has expressed concern about the proposal made by the Leader of the House regarding the three-hour debate. I wonder whether there is not a convention that announcements regarding the ensuing week's business should be made in the House. Is not the obdurate attitude of the Leader of the House due to the fact that yesterday the timing and extent of the debate was announced on both television channels? First, this brings the House into contempt, or certainly treats the House with contempt. Secondly, will hon. Members, receive the same treatment as the

media? In other words, if we ring the Office of the Leader of the House on a Tuesday or Wednesday, can we be given the information about the forthcoming week's business? It seems to me that it is a convention—and it is your job, Mr. Speaker, to protect the conventions of the House in relation to facilities for Back Benchers—to see that announcements are made here before they are made to the media or anybody else outside the House.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have made no announcement on this subject to any other body or in any other place except this House. I cannot be responsible for speculation—which is all that it is—on television.

Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He said that he wished public opinion to be informed on the Olympic Games issue, but we shall be debating it when not only the newspapers will have gone to bed but, I imagine, newspaper journalists will have gone to bed. Consequently, public opinion will not be able to be rallied on this point.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is pursuing a question that he might have asked had I called him earlier.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the leaks to the media of the timing of the debate on the Olympics boycott and the denial by the Leader of the House that he made such a statement, would it be in order for me to request, through you as the guardian of the rights of this House, that the Government should institute a leaks inquiry to find out just where the information came from?

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand from my reading of the press today that the vindictive discrimination against civil servants by the Prime Minister is a breach of the conditions of service for the Civil Service. Those conditions of service are not contractual—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman can relate that to the Standing Orders of our House, I will rule on it.

Mr. Lyon: The conditions of service of civil servants are not contractual obligations. They are honoured only by convention under the constitution. The point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is absolutely valid. If the House passes a resolution on Monday, that may be a breach of those conditions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that that is not a matter upon which I can rule.

FISHING INDUSTRY (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the problems of the United Kingdom fishing industry and the Government's plans for providing short-term aid.
When I met representatives of the fishing industry on 23 January, they described the problems which they were experiencing as a result of increasing costs and deteriorating prices. I asked them to provide me with details of their economic position and to suggest ways in which their problems might be eased. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland met the executive committee of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 1 February, he received similar representations and asked the Scottish fishermen for their suggestions on possible action.
The Secretaries of State for Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and myself have now analysed the responses from the industry and we have concluded that assistance from the Government is justified and necessary. As the House knows, the fishing industry faces great difficulties. It is having to adjust to reduced fishing opportunities. It is uncertain about the future because we are still in the process of negotiating on a common fisheries policy in the EEC; and the recent economic pressures have added substantially to the problems. This is threatening the whole structure of our industry. To meet this situation, the Government intend to introduce two schemes of temporary aid.
First, we propose to make up to £2 million available to the industry through

the fish producers' organisations over the period 1 April to 30 September. This will be in the form of financial aids to be used for a range of prescribed purposes. These purposes include helping the industry to cover part of the cost of intervention so as to maintain withdrawal prices, the provision of temporary laying-up premia, the payment of dock, harbour and landing dues and the financing of approved programmes to improve the grading, handling and sales promotion of fish.
It is an important feature of the scheme that it will give producer organisations a real degree of discretion so that they can match their efforts to the specific needs of the areas in which they operate. A further statement on the details of the scheme will be made after notification to the European Commission and consultation with the industry, which will take place as soon as possible.
In addition, we propose to allocate a further £1 million to extending the programme of exploratory voyages to assess the commercial potential for exploiting under-utilised species.
The Government were urged to act quickly. This we have done. We believe that our proposals taken together will benefit the great majority of fishermen.
The Government remain determined to try to reach a Community fisheries policy that provides a good future for the industry, and the decisions that I have announced today will enable the industry to take advantage of an agreement when it is reached.

Mr. Mason: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's statement will be welcomed. Most fishermen will be pleased that he is granting some short-term relief to the industry. I should congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his timing —certainly this announcement will help the Prime Minister when she sees the fishermen in Hull tomorrow.
On the question of the proposed £2 million for the producer organisations in the next six months, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although there appears to be flexibility to use the grant to each port's best advantage, there is some confusion over who will determine the share-out between the ports, bearing in mind the differences between the deep sea ports and those dependent on inshore and middle distance operations?
Secondly, is the Minister aware that we welcome the extension of the exploratory voyages experiment? This has already had some success and is worthy of encouragement. How many more vessels will benefit and from which ports will they come?
Finally, welcome though this statement is, is the Minister satisfied that this £2 million of short-term aid to the fish producer organisations will be sufficient to stop the price war in fishing ports, encourage more British fish landings and give hope to the industry until a better common fisheries' policy is realised?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for welcoming my statement.
The money will be distributed in accordance with catch values over the previous year. This is something that we will discuss with the industry. We are trying this afternoon to arrange meetings with the producer organisations next week so that speedy action can be taken.
I cannot give the detail that the right hon. Gentleman seeks about the number of exploratory voyages because again we wish to discuss this with the industry. A number of ports will benefit—basically those that have been most adversely hit by the loss of our long-distance fishing.
On the third point about whether this is an adequate amount, it is difficult to judge future trends. The figures for January showed an alarming drop in prices. In December the picture was very different. No one month's figures can give a true indication. This is our best judgment of what is needed. I think that the Opposition's judgment would be the same because the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) suggested in our recent fishing debate that £3 million was needed. That is the judgment of the Government as well.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the use of the grant to adjust withdrawal prices will help all sections of the industry, and the use for dock charges and exploratory voyages will particularly benefit Hull? I note that the grant expires on 30 September. Does this indicate that my right hon. Friend hopes to have the common fisheries policy buttoned up by then?

Mr. Walker: The date on which agreement will be reached—if agreement is

reached—is beyond any accurate speculation. I hope that the progress that is being made will result in our reaching an agreement by June or July, or, at the latest, early autumn. That is why we have based our programme on the period when there is likely to be uncertainty.
I think that the methods that we have used for helping the industry, which were arrived at in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, best meet the considerable diversity of problems affecting the fishing ports.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister give us an undertaking that the interests of the inshore fishermen are being protected? Can he say which organisations will be consulted and whether any money will be available to meet particularly heavy payments due on new boats? As the grant is only for six months, will he give an assurance that conversations will continue with the industry during that time on quotas and imports?

Mr. Walker: A substantial part of our proposals will benefit inshore fishermen, and many of the producer organisations represent such fishermen. I give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will continue—both in the negotiations on the common fisheries policy and in examining the detailed problems of the industry —to consider the questions in closest association with the various leaders of the fishing industry. We have tried to do that over the past nine months. The first of the new problems arose in January, and I immediately asked the industry to give me the details. On that basis, I believe that we have acted pretty quickly.

Mr. Sproat: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the measures that he has announced today will be widely welcomed in the fishing industry, not least because the Government's proposals are largely based on what the fishing industry wanted? Will he confirm that the £1 million for exploratory voyages will particularly and substantially help trawling fleets, such as the one based at Aberdeen? Can he also confirm that the £2 million for the producer organisations can be used to sort out the deeply damaging effect of the dock labour scheme in ports such as Aberdeen?

Mr. Walker: The proposals that we have announced will be of benefit to Aberdeen. Both sets of proposals will have application to this port. As I said, I hope to discuss next week with those closely concerned the details of how the aid that is available is used.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I congratulate the Minister on his readiness to give assistance to the fishing industry at a critical time. At the risk of appearing ungrateful, may I again ask him for an assurance that this assistance is not intended as a softening-up approach for the industry over the negotiations with the Common Market on fishing policy?

Mr. Walker: Both the Prime Minister and myself have constantly stated the basic principles on which we will negotiate a common fisheries policy. There is no question of selling out the fishing industry for other factors.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I thank my right hon. Friend for this timely assistance to the industry. In allocating the £2 million on the basis of landings, will he say whether this will be done on a sliding scale, bearing in mind that the smallest fishing communities are least creditworthy with the banks and therefore need a more than arithmetic degree of support?

Mr. Walker: I understand that particular aspect of the problem facing some of the smaller fishing communities, but I must point out that the sectors of the fishing industry that have been most adversely affected in recent years are the major fishing ports and the long-distance fishermen. They have lost their fishing grounds, whereas some of our inshore fishermen have enjoyed periods during the past few years when they have had pretty good catches and very fair prices. By basing our aid on the value of catches in the past, I think that we are being as fair as possible.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the Minister recognise that until this country regains effective control over the fisheries in our sovereign waters, measures of this kind can be no more than a palliative and a prolongation of miseries which are not due to any fault or failure of the British fishing industry?

Mr. Walker: To some extent, the fact that Iceland has gained control of its

waters is one of the major problems of the British fishing industry. I recognise —as does the fishing industry—that the problems of conservation would be much better organised and carried out to the benefit of future fishing in general if it were organised on a European basis. Unfortunately, fish do not have any great respect for territorial boundaries.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: While accepting what my right hon. Friend has just said about dealing with this problem on a European basis, may I ask him whether he is aware of the mounting evidence that the world fish demand will not be met by the exploitation of the open sea? Is he aware that evidence from Japan suggests that this need can be met in future only by fish farming on a massive scale? Will attempts be made in this country to develop fish farming, and will it be equally open to aid of this sort?

Mr. Walker: Fish farming in this country is developing in certain spheres and my Department has shown an interest in research developments. I agree that, in terms of potential, production of fish proteins and edible fish is a very important factor. We will continue the research. At present there is a great deal of fish farming in this country which is prospering. It has not had the disadvantage of being deprived of its waters as some of our fishermen have.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the Minister aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed by fishermen in Hull who have taken such a battering over the past 12 months or more? We warmly welcome the statement about the Prime Minister's visit. She will receive a warm welcome in more ways than one. We are glad that she is coming. Does the Minister accept that the proposal is a lifeline for Hull in the next few weeks? Does he agree that unless there is a fleet of Hull vessels manned by Hull men, landing fish in Hull, we are finished as a port? Does it not behove us to get a decent settlement in June so that our fishermen can sail out of Hull again?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Prime Minister's welcome in Hull. The hon. Gentleman and the fishing industry must know of the close interest that the Prime Minister took in the fishing industry long before the problems of last month. I


know that the fishing industry welcomes that.
I totally agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance to Hull of the solution of a common fisheries policy. Nothing could be more important to a port such as Hull than a satisfactory settlement of the common fishing policy.

Sir Walter Clegg: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and say how welcome it will be in the ports? The £1 million for exploratory voyages will be greatly welcomed as they have already proved successful in locating new fishing areas. That will be much welcomed in Fleetwood, especially if there are further voyages. Will the Minister keep in close touch with the general situation and constantly monitor it? The position is delicate, as I am sure my right hon. Friend appreciates.

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend knows from my visit to Fleetwood last year how much I admired the manner in which that port struggled against unbelievably adverse circumstances, yet survived. I am delighted that one of the recent exploratory voyages from Fleetwood was especially successful. I hope that the aid will give further encouragement to Fleetwood as a port.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the Minister accept that today's proposals are a minor first step or a mini U-turn by this noninterventionist Government? Does the Minister agree that the sums involved are small, in contrast to the real needs of the industry? Is there not a need to prolong this aid beyond the six-month period? Is there not a need for an operating subsidy, which sections of the industry wanted? Is not there a prime need for action on imports, to put up the official withdrawal prices on the Continent and, as there is what amounts to a dumping situation, an emergency levy on imports to make our fish competitive?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman said rather begrudgingly that a relatively small amount was involved and that much more was needed. The problems in his part of the world have existed for some time. In the last two years of office of the Labour Government, the total aid, in addition to the normal ongoing schemes,

was £750,000 over two years. The hon. Gentleman can hardly complain about £3 million over six months.
I saw many figures of imports in January. They are substantial. Landings of cod by our own fishermen in January were 50 per cent. up because climatic and weather conditions were then better than in many past Januaries. It is difficult to judge the import position on one month's figures. For example, in January imports of cod were massively up. In December they were 20 per cent. down. Plaice imports were quoted by some sections of the fishing industry as a public relations exercise. Imports of plaice were much affected by a strike in Lowestoft and the need to substitute other fish for them. This is a difficult and delicate period for the fishing industry. I shall constantly remain in contact with the industry over the matter.

Mr. Brotherton: May I add my thanks to my right hon. Friend for the aid and his assurance about the future negotiations for a common fisheries policy? I congratulate him on his sense of timing, which is so much better than that of the Lord Privy Seal on the question of the Olympic Games debate.
As this is a short-term measure, which is designed to take us up to 30 September, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the most important aspect for the fishing industry is the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy? In particular, will he say something about the relationships of the Community with third nations such as Norway, Iceland, Greenland and Canada?

Mr. Walker: It is only when we have a common fishing policy that we can have suitable and effective negotiations with third countries. I hope that out of those negotiations with third countries will come substantial benefit to the British fishing fleet.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that the House welcomes this charming little U-turn by the Government? Will he keep in mind the vexed question of cheap, and in many cases poached, imports that are still causing enormous problems for the industry? Will he undertake to do something about the recommendations of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? That would


at least ensure that the White Fish Authority levy is imposed on imported and transhipped fish.

Mr. Walker: Yes. As to the hon. Gentleman's last point, the Government are considering the position at present. They will make an announcement.
It is important to get a balance of imports. The fish processing industries and a large number of jobs depend upon the continuation of imports. Therefore, a ban on imports would not be to the overall benefit of anybody.
We have been concerned at the nature of imports. We persuaded other Governments to take prosecutions, as in the case of Germany against a number of its fishermen. We are having discussions with the Dutch Government on the manner in which they organise their trade with this country so that it is less disruptive of some British markets and the British fishing position. We are well aware of those problems and will continue to study them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising. I hope that they will co-operate and be brief. Of course, I shall call the Front Bench speakers at the end.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Minister say how much aid will be available to fishermen in Northern Ireland and how it will be distributed? Will he ensure that skippers will be able to obtain financial aid—they cannot at the moment—towards the renovation of their boats?

Mr. Walker: In preparing this, I was in close consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Discussions will take place with producer organisations in Northern Ireland. They will receive their proper share of the aid.

Mr. Pollock: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his welcome statement and say that any financial assistance is most welcome at this most difficult time? May I take it from a previous answer that the Government remain firmly committed to a rigorous examination of any evidence of import abuse? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will press for stern action against any illegal imports?

Mr. Walker: Yes.

Mr. Robert Hughes: May I welcome the useful £2 million which is being made available? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the range of items to be covered by the money is the best way of ensuring that the money goes to the industry? In other words, is he satisfied that the scheme is not too complicated? How quickly will money find its way into the industry?

Mr. Walker: The Government went out of their way to avoid a complicated scheme and to give considerable flexibility and therefore responsibility, to some extent, to the producer organisations. As to the speed with which we can get the money to the recipients, the reason that my office and the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland are contacting the producer arganisations this afternoon is the hope of arranging a meeting with them next week.

Mr. Henderson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this positive response to the excellent representations from the fishing industry will be widely welcomed? Is he aware that in many parts of the country, especially in the Firth of Forth and East Fife, which concern me, many fishing boats are not members of the producer organisations. Can he say that, if they are not at present included, they will not be precluded from the scope of his statement if they now form or join one? Is there any way in which the Government can assist them in this matter?

Mr. Walker: We shall ensure in the allocation of money that there is scope to take account of fisherman who now join producers' organisations and groups of fisherman who decide that they will now form a producers' organisation. The Scottish Office and my office will be only too pleased to give help and guidance required in the formation of any producers' organisations.

Mr. McQuarrie: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his Minister of State, the Secretary of State for Scotland and, not least, the Prime Minister on honouring the right hon. Lady's obligation to treat fisheries as a priority? Does my right hon. Friend agree


that this money is most valuable, especially in a constituency such as mine, Aberdeenshire, East?
I was delighted that the Secretary of State said that £1 million would be made available for exploratory work. Will he assure us that the purse-seiners will be given an opportunity of tendering for that work so that they may look for the additional fish that is necessary and relieve the strain on the inshore fishermen? They will have a better opportunity of making a valuable catch and thus reduce the amount of money needed from the £2 million.

Mr. Walker: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. As he well knows, there is a diversity of problems around our coast and the contribution to our proposals by the Secretary of State for Scotland, following his close consultations with the industry, was an important factor. I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend assurances about the nature of the exploratory voyages, not because of any wish not to give him such information, but because, having decided on the principle of the position, it is important, before making any announcement, as I think he will understand, that we discuss with the industry how best that £1 million should be allocated.

Mr. Strang: I congratulate the Minister on this breach in the Thatcherite policy of non-intervention in industry and accept that he is right not to look further forward than September, but will he accept that, if there is no improvement in the market situation and if he is not successful in securing a proper conclu-

sion to the negotiations on the EEC fisheries policy, it will be necessary to continue the scheme beyond September?

Mr. Walker: I think that what I announced in principle at the end of my statement makes it clear that the Government consider it important to retain a viable fishing industry until such time as we agree on a common fishing policy. If that meant considering further action, whether an extention of these measures or other measures, we would of course do that in consultation with the industry.

BILL PRESENTED

STAMP DUTY (ABOLITION)

Mr. Christopher Murphy, supported by Mr. Jack Aspinwall, Mr. Den Dover, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. Iain Mills, Mr. J. F. Pawsey, Mr. K. Harvey Proctor, Mr. Tony Speller, Mr. Malcolm Thornton, Mr. D. A. Trippier and Mr. John Wheeler, presented a Bill to abolish stamp duty on house purchase: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 167].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Motion relating to the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 with the substitution of half past Eleven o'clock or four hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, for the provisions in paragraph 1(b) of the Standing Order.—[Mr. Newton.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (INVALID DIRECTION) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

Mr. Stanley Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I see that you have not selected amendment No. 1. We would ask, without challenging your ruling, of course, whether you could explain to us what the position is. Without in any way wishing the Secretary of State physical harm, in case he is knocked down by a No. 39 bus before 31 March and a successor is appointed to his office we want to protect the position and to ensure that the ruling of the court would still apply. That is the basis of our amendment.

The Chairman: It has never been the practice for a Chairman or, indeed, for Mr. Speaker to give any reason for his selection. I am sorry that I have not been able to select amendment No. 1, but it would be quite in order for the right hon. Gentleman to raise this matter on Third reading and for it to be debated then.

Clause 1

EFFECT OF SECRETARY OF STATE'S INSTRUMENT

Mr. Orme: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 13, at end add—
'(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to consider any claim made by a patient or potential patient of the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Area Health Authority (Teaching) that that patient or potential patient was prejudiced by action taken under the authority of the instrument of 1 August 1979 and if upon examination the patient's claim appears to the Secretary of State to be established then such patient shall receive compensation for any losses incurred by him as a result of such action under the said instrument.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 13, at end add—

'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to consider any claim made by a supplier or potential supplier of any goods or services to the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Area Health Authority (Teaching) that the supplier acted or was induced to act to the supplier's detriment by any action taken under the instrument of 1st August 1979 and if upon examination the supplier's claim appears to the Secretary of State to be established then such a supplier shall receive compensation for any losses incurred by him as a result of such action under the said instrument.'.

New clause 1—Damages.

Mr. Orme: We are concerned, first, about the possibility of considering any claim made by a patient or a potential patient of the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham area health authority and to secure that he or she shall not be prejudiced by the action taken by the instrument which the Secretary of State introduced on 1 August 1979. There could be cases of kidney operations, for instance, not carried out at Dulwich hospital, or cardiac operations not carried out at King's, because of the intervention of the commissioners. We should welcome an explanation from the Secretary of State about what happened in regard to patient care and the involvement of patients during the period of the commissioners' rule.
Can the Secretary of State perhaps explain to the Committee how he intends to deal with patients who feel that they have a genuine complaint against the Service? There are very difficult problems, particularly for patients who have had operations deferred. This may sometimes be merely inconvenient, but sometimes it can be a great disadvantage to the patient, particularly if a heart complaint or a kidney complaint is involved, which could be of a very serious nature.
We wonder whether the Secretary of State has made any assessment of this situation and what happened when the commissioners were in control, and how any patients who feel that they have been placed at a disadvantage can proceed. There is a difference between a person feeling that he or she has been disadvantaged and proving that that is the case, but I think that such persons have a right to have their cases considered. Will the Secretary of State, therefore, inform the Committee what steps he will take in this particular regard, because we feel that this is an important aspect?
I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends has any specific examples of this, but perhaps one of them, if he catches your eye, Mr. Weatherill, will be able to give a specific example of one of his constituents who has suffered in this way.
Amendment No. 5 deals with the same principle in regard to suppliers of goods or services and contracts which may have been entered into prior to the suspension of the area health authority and its replacement by the commissioners. We should like to know the legal position of such suppliers and contractors and whether the Secretary of State is prepared to look at their cases. We should also like to know whether he has had any such cases brought to him.
We are not seeking in any way to raise hypothetical questions, but we feel that there may be cases which have not come to light and that they ought to be covered by the amendments which are before the House. We believe, in regard to both amendment No. 4 and amendment No. 5, that where it is established that a patient or a supplier of goods or services has been disadvantaged, that person or firm should receive compensation for any losses arising from that situation.
That explains our position very briefly and succinctly, and no doubt the Secretary of State will address himself to the two amendments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) will argue his new clause if he catches your eye, Mr. Weatherill.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I intervene more or less at the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). I was asked by a prospective patient at King's College hospital to visit him at his home on precisely the issue raised by my right hon. Friend and I was in difficulty about advising him.
I speak with some hesitation about this case because clinical considerations are involved. The Committtee will understand why I prefer not to mention the name of my constituent. If the Secretary of State wishes to investigate this case, I shall be happy to let him know in confidence the name and address of my constituent.
I understand that my constituent is suffering from a serious heart complaint. The Greenwich district hospital referred him to King's College hospital for major surgery—I think it was open-heart surgery. My constituent visited the consultant, who told him that he would like to be in a position to operate immediately; that because of the constraints on expenditure which had been imposed by the commissioners an immediate operation was impossible; that he would be all right for the time being and that if his condition deteriorated the consultant would need to go to the commissioners to obtain permission to undertake the operation which he believed to be necessary.
As a layman, I have always understood that a medical or clinical opinion of someone who is highly competent to make a judgment of that kind is unlikely to be overruled by an area health authority or commissioners.
In the brief time available to me I have been unable to check the facts. It may be that the story is other than as I have described, but I went to my constituent's home and talked to him and his wife, and they seemed to be highly reputable people. He is retired, so no question of compensation arises.
I was highly disturbed by the tale my constituent told me. I understand from press reports and discussions with other hon. Members who represent constituencies in South-East London that there may be other similar cases. The Committee would welcome advice from the Secretary of State on the issues that could arise under the amendment.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I support the amendment. In his speech on Second Reading, the Secretary of State prayed in aid the argument of his predecessor that the area health authority had overspent by about £3 million. Later, when explaining how far the commissioners had achieved their objective, the right hon. Gentleman said:
Thirdly, they made a few decisions, specifically aimed at reducing patient services as a means of achieving the essential cost savings."—[Ofticial Report, 11 March 1980]; Vol. 980, c. 1171.]
To have achieved the savings they did, the commissioners must have had to cut very deeply into patient services. It does


not matter now whether the Secretary of State was right or wrong in his judgment of whether they should have done that. What matters is that he was out of order. What he did was illegal.
In putting forward amendment No. 4, we are not arguing the morality of whether in principle the Secretary of State was right and whether his intention was honourable. What he did was illegal. Therefore, in considering the amendment we have to decide whether anyone who suffered from that illegal act should be compensated. It is right that the constituent to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) referred, and any others who may be similarly affected, should be invited to make a claim in accordance with the provisions of the amendment. We are not arguing whether what was done was right or wrong. We are arguing that it was illegal and, therefore, that anyone who suffered from that illegal act must be given redress.
The Minister argued that what he did illegally in August should now be made legal. In other legislation that is now going through Parliament, another Minister is arguing that an action performed legally by a person in April should become illegal in November. That is an extraordinary situation. We are saying in one Bill that although he acted illegally we will indemnify the Minister, yet in another Bill we are saying that a decision taken legally by a local authority in April will become illegal at the end of November and financial sanctions will be taken against the local authority. The Government are not in a clear state of mind about what they are doing. These two Bills are incompatible.
The Bill cannot make legal an injury that has occurred. I will not be a party to a Bill that tries to do that. It is against the fundamental rights of the individual. It cannot be right to indemnify the Minister and not to compensate a person who has suffered an injury. Amendment No. 4 is designed to redress that position.
I am not so sure that I would go to the stake for amendment No. 5 on behalf of suppliers. The fundamental issue still remains that an illegal act remains illegal. People who have been injured must be properly taken care of.

Mr. Orme: We are talking about suppliers who employ people and who have been disadvantaged by the Secretary of State's action.

Mr. Brown: That is correct. We are talking about the people on whom there has been a spin-off effect.
Conservative Members must understand that it is no good cutting a little piece out of society and saying that it is a special one-off case and will never be referred to again. Once there is a precedent—we operate on precedents—and someone is hurt, in one way or another, whether personally or through business, by an illegal act of the Government and that is validated, it will happen again in many other areas. We are talking about the Health Service today, but there are a whole range of other areas where it might happen. It will be no use Conservative Members then complaining that the circumstances are different. If they oppose amendments Nos. 4 and 5, they will undermine the basic freedoms of the country. They must not try to persuade themselves that it does not matter.
The House must be prepared to defend the freedoms of people and say that those who are hurt by illegal actions of the Government must be properly taken care of. We are not talking about the Secretary of State or minor issues. We are talking about a great issue. We are talking about the rights of people who have been hurt by an illegal act of the Government. The interests of the individual are as great as those of the Government. The House will rue the day if it forgets that.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) introduced the amendments with feeling and in an appropriate fashion. However, he will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with the point that he was making. It is not a matter of legality and illegality. The purpose of the Bill is to legitimise actions that were taken that were not legitimate at the time.
I rise to make one point about the amendments and not to explore the territory again. If for no other reason, I do not accept the amendments because of the use of the word "potential". The word is wide in its context. I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) will accept that I am not in any


way referring to the specific case that he mentioned. I simply wish to make a general point. I do not wish to impinge on his comments. I do not understand what is meant by a "potential" patient. We are all potential patients if we are passing through that area at any given moment.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a point between the time at which the patient has gone to his general practitioner, has been referred to the hospital, has had a preliminary interview with the consultant concerned, and is then waiting? If he accepts that the word "patient" wholly encompasses the case of an individual from the moment he attends the surgery of his GP, whether or not his condition has been fully diagnosed, that is one thing. Some hon. Members feel that the word "potential" protects the individual.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He illustrates the point that I am trying to make, namely, that the matter of who is a patient and who is a potential patient is for debate. We could all claim if we were registered with a practitioner under the Health Service that technically we were all patients, even though we were not activating our patient status by visiting a general practitioner or receiving hospital treatment.
Among other reasons, I do not accept these amendments because of the use of the phrase "potential patient". There is no definition of that phrase. There are no bounds to it. If a person was passing through the area at that time, he would be a potential patient of the area health authority. What does that mean? It does not mean that everyone should lodge a complaint against an AHA on the ground that he is a potential patient. That is not the intention, but it is a possibility under the amendments.
Amendment No. 5 refers to potential suppliers. What constitutes a potential supplier? Is a potential supplier one who on a previous occasion has supplied and has, therefore, staked his claim to future consideration? That may be. However, it could equally be argued that everyone in the country who runs a firm that manufactures, services or sells goods that may be of interest to an AHA could be a potential supplier. I know that it is not the

intention of the Opposition that all potential suppliers should lodge a claim against an AHA, but the wording of the amendment would make it a possibility.
I have more substantial disagreements with the amendments, but on this ground alone they are unacceptable.

Mr. Roland Moyle: What would happen in the case of a supplier who submitted a tender for supplies and whose tender would have been accepted because it was the cheapest but for the fact that the commissioners told the supplier that they were no longer interested in purchasing those supplies because they wished to cut back, and who accepted the decision because he thought that it was legal? How does the hon. Member think that that supplier should be treated?

Dr. Mawhinney: When people are invited to tender, they do so on the understanding that the money will be available to pay for the goods that they supply. As I understand, what has been said and what is being regulated in the Bill is that money was not available to meet a particular case. I happily accepted the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, but it does not relate to the point with which I wish to deal.
The word "potential" is too ambiguous, and, therefore, I cannot accept the amendments.

Mr. Christopher Price: It is a little sad that the Chamber is so empty this afternoon when we are dealing with legislation, which is both retrospective and affects the rights of individuals. The House has traditionally taken this form of legislation seriously, even though the issue concerned may have been more trivial than the issue that we are discussing today.
I hope that the amendments will be taken seriously and that they will not be considered in any party political framework. The sort of matter that we are discussing today does not occur often. There have been cases such as that of Tameside. In that case the judgment was made quickly, and no action was taken before the final judgment of the House of Lords.
In these amendments we are dealing with a case where over a period of eight months thousands of transactions took place concerning individuals, the purchase


of supplies and the conditions of service of employees. The individuals were treated and the supplies were purchased in a way that, to use Mr. Justice Woolf's words, vitiated the system. I am not as good a lawyer as the Secretary of State. However, the amendments have been tabled to ensure that by correcting the vitiation, which is the purpose of the Bill, we do not simultaneously deprive individuals of rights that they would have otherwise had and to which they would have been entitled.
5 pm
It may be said "If the AHA had been in office and the commissioners had not been called in, there would have been very much the same pattern of decisions." I do not want to argue that contention. It may be true or it may not be true, but that is not the point. The fact is that there has been vitiation. If we are to take the law seriously, we must be careful to ensure that in passing retrospective legislation of this sort we do not simultaneously deprive individuals of their rights.
I shall give one or two examples to support my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett). It is well known that heart operations at King's College hospital had been proceeding until October-November 1979. Certainly they proceeded until 31 August, when the commissioners took their first big bunch of decisions. It is well known that the operations had been proceeding at a rate which, in the clinical judgment of the consultants concerned, was reasonable having regard to the needs of those requiring such operations.
It is interesting to refer to the minutes of the second formal meeting of the commissioners. It is worth reminding ourselves that they were not public minutes. They had to be leaked by public-spirited people to the citizens of Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham before we knew what decisions were being made. On 30 August 1979, a few weeks after the commissioners were appointed, among the many decisions that the commissioners are recorded as having taken was one to make the closure of 71 acute beds at King's College hospital. I could mention many consequences that flowed from that closure but I shall pick only one. A number of my constituents and constituents represented by other hon. Mem-

bers who were expecting to enter King's fairly soon—[Interruption.]—to have heart operations were not able to do so as quickly as anticipated.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I am having some difficulty understanding his argument. Is he suggesting that we should give additional rights over and above those that already exist, or is he suggesting that we should ensure that existing rights are protected?

Mr. Price: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his apology for interrupting me. He was not the only one.

Mr. Robert Mellish: My hon. Friend's speech was causing excitement.

Mr. Price: I want to preserve existing rights. In the event of litigation arising between a patient and the area health authority, I do not want the patient's case to be, as it were, ruled out of court without any argument merely because Parliament has enacted the Bill as it stands. The patient should be able to argue his case, whatever it might be, of the negligence of the hospital and not be prevented from arguing it by anything that we do today.
As I have said, I do not have the expertise of the Secretary of State in these matters. I do not know whether the wording of the amendments is exactly right to cover what I have in mind. A number of cases has been presented to me, and I submitted a test case, as it were, to Sir Frank Hartley. I wrote to Sir Frank because I became so sick of receiving letters from the Secretary of State asking me to write to Sir Frank. Towards the end of the commissioners' regime I took the right hon. Gentleman's advice and began writing to Sir Frank. Sir Frank began to answer letters written by myself and other hon. Members.
I think that my right hon. Friend the member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) will agree that in the early stages of the commissioners' regime they were uncertain of their relationship to Members of Parliament. In this respect I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. The uncertainty of relationship was ironed out about two-thirds of the way through the period during which the commissioners were in power. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Member for


Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) will join me in paying that tribute. Consultation became rather better about two-thirds of the way through the regime than it had been at the beginning.
I wrote to Sir Frank. I do not know whether he passes all the correspondence that he receives to the Department. I think that he probably does. If that is the arrangement, my letter should be on the file. I shall not mention the name of the constituent on whose behalf I wrote. She was expecting to go into King's earlier this year. She has just been admitted. I have no means of telling whether she jumped a queue. She was acutely ill at home for nearly six weeks before she could be admitted for her operation. If the 71 beds had not been illegally closed by the commissioners, there is no doubt that she would have been admitted at a proper time for her to have her operation according to the clinical judgment of the consultant. The consultant has made it clear to all his patients—I know that this applies to patients other than my constituents—that they have not been able to receive the treatment that they were entitled to expect from the National Health Service because of bed closures. I do not think that there is any real disagreement about the facts.

Mr. Roger Moate: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not having heard the earlier part of his speech. There have been closures in other areas where the legality of the action is not in doubt. Presumably the hon. Gentleman would argue that in those areas individuals have been prejudiced by closures. Why should individuals in the area in question have rights of redress against the authority?

Mr. Michael English: Because there was illegal action.

Mr. Moate: Whatever the legalities, it would mean that in certain areas some patients, or potential patients, would have a great advantage at law over those in other areas where no such rights exist.

Mr. Price: If the Secretary of State takes action which creates illegality over seven months, our prime duty is to protect the interests of individuals. If there is a problem in the constituency of the hon.

Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) as a result of hospital closures, his constituents have a right to go to law to settle the matter. Those closures took place under legal procedures. These closures took place under illegal procedures. I do not know of one, but if a constituent of mine were to take action against the area health authority for any reason the danger is that unless the Bill is passed with an amendment of this kind in it a judge might say that the House of Commons had exonerated the Secretary of State and the area health authority in every particular and that the action could not continue. We have a duty to safeguard these matters.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely, but it may not have been easy for him to appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). We would like those hon. Members who are pressing this amendment to make clear whether the illegality of the direction leads them to argue that their constituents should be put in a more privileged position than someone who would have been affected if the area health authority had legally taken the same decisions as the commissioners. Part of the case made on Tuesday by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen was that the area health authority—though it may not have made the same decision as the commissioners—would, left to its own devices, have brought the expenditure within the limits by the end of the year.

Mr. Price: I understand the importance of that argument and I take the point made by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). I want a court to be able fully to take into account—should there be litigation between a constituent of mine and the area health authority—not only the situation as it was but also the illegality of the commissioners' position.
The Secretary of State says that that means that I want more favourable treatment for those people who were subject to the decisions of the commissioners. I do not know about that, but the Secretary of State also says that he wishes to prevent a court of law from taking into account—the issues might be covered by amendments Nos. 4 and 5—the fact that the authority was being administered by


a collection of individuals who were illegally appointed and whose appointment was eventually vitiated.
The Secretary of State says that if the AHA had governed the affairs of the authority it would have taken decisions which were roughly the same as those taken by the commissioners. I believe that it is important that the Secretary of State understands that there were tremendous differences between the status of the AHA and that of the commissioners. Before the appointment of the commissioners, the AHA took its decisions in public and the four community health councils were consulted on every point. We contend that an AHA operating in a democratic context would be far more likely to make coherent decisions about cuts. Such decisions would be taken sensibly and would not involve risks to the lives of patients as happened under a bunch of commissioners who met in secret.

Mr. David Crouch: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) has argued strongly that the commissioners acted illegally because they were illegally appointed and that as a result some patients and some contractors were put at a disadvantage. The hon. Gentleman seems to forget, however, that it is the status of the commissioners only that is illegal in the administration of health and that above them there is the legal regional authority and that above that there is a Department which is also legal. The commissioners do not act alone. There is a monitoring system written into the Act, and what the commissioners did was monitored all the time. In that way there was some monitoring of their actions.

Mr. Price: I accept that the regional health authority and the Department monitored the situation as best they could a month or two after the appointment of the commissioners. It was some months before we had a clear decision from the Secretary of State as to whether that monitoring role would continue.

Mr. English: Does my hon. Friend accept that the regional health authority was not particularly loyal to its area health authority? The regional authority did not bring the action against

the Secretary of State. It was the district council that brought the action. The regional health authority was prepared to abandon the area authority.

Mr. Price: I do not wish to go into that issue, though there is much that I could say about the regional health authority and its relationship with the commissioners.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: If my hon. Friend, as a constituency Member, had approached the RHA about the activities of the AHA in his area, he would have been told in no uncertain terms by the RHA that the actions of the AHA were its own responsibility. This was a worse situation because the commissioners were an illegal body set up on a UDI basis.

Mr. Price: I agree that that is what I would have been told. That is what I was told, although I pay tribute to certain members of the regional health authority for taking pains to pursue their monitoring role throughout the regime of the commissioners.
If anyone can believe that the transfer of patients from Guy's hospital to New Cross hospital as happened under the regime of the commissioners could have taken place under a democratically elected Health Service body with community health councils working properly and an area health authority which included democratic representatives, he will believe anything.

Mr. Moate: Does not the hon. Gentleman remember that that is exactly what happened two or three years ago at Hounslow hospital? I remember it well because I was a patient at that hospital and was sorry to see it closed. The circumstances of the transfer from Hounslow were exactly as those described by the hon. Gentleman, and the transfer on that occasion took place under a democratically elected body.

Mr. Price: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about Hounslow, he can make his own speech. I deplored the events at Hounslow as much as anyone else. I know the democratic representatives of Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham. They took their responsibilities seriously, as is evidenced by the various


court cases and the work that they did on the area health authority. Those representatives rightly considered that under the law their duty to patients and their legal duty under the Act came before any extra-legal duty to keep within cash limits. They took their responsibilities seriously. They would not have allowed the disgraceful events that took place at Guy's hospital.
I urge the House not to regard this matter as trivial. It is serious. I see no reason why the Secretary of State should not accept the amendments. He has said that he is sorry. He has humbly apologised for his action. An earnest of the reality of that apology would be the acceptance of the amendments.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). I agree with the general premise from which he started, namely, that it is important that the Bill should not take away existing rights. I am sure that he is right.
However, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on another matter. I have considered the Bill carefully, and I am certain that it does not deprive people of existing rights. I pressed the hon. Gentleman about whether he was trying to give people new rights rather than preserving existing ones, and he said that it was not his intention to give people new and fresh rights; all that he was seeking to do was to preserve existing rights. The reality is that those who put forward the amendments are trying to give people rights of action which are not presently known to the law and which are greatly in excess of rights possessed by other people.

Mr. English: Does what the hon. Member says about the amendments apply to new clause 1?

Mr. Hogg: I would never overlook a new clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). I shall deal with it in detail, because it needs specific comment.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West said that he was anxious that the courts should adjudicate on all relevant matters. He emphasised more than once that there should be a right of action before the

courts. He suggested that perhaps the amendment and the new clause were not drafted as happily as he wished. He is right. The new clause and amendments Nos. 4 and 5 deprive the courts of any right of action. They do not give a right of action in the courts, but they give the Secretary of State a wholly arbitrary and unfettered jurisdiction to award whatever compensation he feels fit. There is no precedent for applying to the Secretary of State, and no method of appealing against his decision.
If hon. Members suppose that the new clause and amendments Nos. 4 and 5 give people a right of action before the courts, they are wholly mistaken. They merely extend the discretionary power of the Secretary of State, which can be exercised without appeal. Much as I respect the Secretary of State, I am not at all sure that he wishes to exercise such unfettered jurisdiction.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Secretary of State's discretion could be reviewed, as it could be previously?

Mr. Hogg: I wondered about that. The answer is probably "No". This is a departure from existing practice. I do not think that it falls within any of the recognised categories for judicial review. That is my view, but I should be delighted to talk about it at any time.
I deal next with new clause 1, about which the hon. Member for Nottingham, West was so anxious for a comment. I am always willing to comment on the hon. Gentleman's new clauses. The new clause is wholly otiose and unnecessary. It is also badly drawn. If somebody has a right to damages, which is what is being contemplated by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West, or an existing cause of action—for example, in negligence—there is nothing in the Bill which deprives him of that. Although the new clause may have given the hon. Gentleman great pleasure to draw, it is unnecessary and rather unattractive because it does not include the right to go to court on the issue of damages.
Amendment No. 5 caused me considerable surprise. It contains a cause of action that is wholly unknown to the law. What is apparently contemplated is a supplier, or potential supplier, of goods


who has acted to his own detriment under the instrument. I ask myself "What on earth is this?" Is it misrepresentation? If it is, the law can act against those responsible for misrepresentation. Is it an alleged breach of contract? If it is, there is an existing cause of action that is not affected by the Bill. What is it? The truth is that it is a new animal which is wholly unknown to the law and which will not be recognised by the courts. It is designed to meet a situation which has never previously given rise to a cause of action.
We have been asked "What about a tenderer? Should not he be compensated?" Anyone who asks that knows nothing about the law. A tenderer frequently changes his position as a result of an invitation to treat. Unless a tenderer has entered into a valid contract, in no circumstances can he have a claim against anyone. Hon. Members are seeking to give a cause of action that is unknown.
Exactly the same comments apply to amendment No. 4. We are told that people who are prejudiced should have a right of action, but what does "prejudiced" mean? Perhaps it means that someone is insulted, upset, embarrassed or made miserable. That concept is not known to the law. Either there is an existing right of action, in which case the right of action is preserved and the Bill does not affect it, or there is not. The amendment is an attempt, by a side wind, to change the law in wholly uncharted spheres.
There is another objection to the amendment. The law has always been anxious to ensure that damages do not become oppressive—hence the concept of foreseeability as the test in damages. I note with some surprise that the amendment excludes any reference to any concept of foreseeability and that compensation is entirely within the unfettered discretion of the Secretary of State.
If there were anything in the Bill that would deprive people of existing causes of action, I should be the first to join the hon. Member for Lewisham, West and support the amendments. However, having considered it carefully, I am confident that there is nothing in the Bill that will deprive people of existing causes of action. That being so, I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.

Mr. Mellish: I have never heard the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) speak before. He really is a chip off the old block. Like his distinguished father, he even laughs at his own jokes. Like his father, when he gives advice he regards that as the end of the matter. He takes the view that we need not ask anybody else because he has spoken. I enjoyed his speech, but I do not quite believe all that he said. I shall want even more distinguished lawyers to advise me. I also wish to listen to the Opposition Front Bench spokesman.
Let us escape from the legal jargon. The commissioners were appointed by the Secretary of State. It is now known that that appointment was illegal. The commissioners did not know anything about the area and they took advice from Mr. Carruthers and others who had been in the district for a long time. Their terms of reference were both short and simple. Sir Frank told me that the Secretary of State had told them to find a £1½ million saving in the Guy's district by October of last year. That body should not have been appointed.
5.30 pm
The commissioners claimed that the only way that they could find that saving was to close down a hospital. At no time did they attempt to justify the reasons for closing the hospital, other than by the fact that they had to comply with the instructions of the Secretary of State to find a £1½ million saving.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) spoke about the regional board, and I respect its position in the matter. As I understand it, the Secretary of State gave powers to the commissioners to do certain things within that saving, with certain limitations. Sir Frank did not come to St. Olave's to see the hospital that he intended to close. I begged him to do so, but he would not come. Instead, he took advice from those who sat around him.
The hon. Member for Canterbury must not think that the regional board had any control in the matter. It was instructed to save £1½ million, and it was advised by local people—who were a pretty contemptuous lot—to shut St. Olave's.
To use legal jargon, the premise I make from that position is that the closing of St. Olave's was carried out by an illegally


appointed body and was, therefore, illegal. If that is a correct premise, a number of things follow.
The hon. Member for Grantham spoke about tendering. Anybody who tenders hopes that his tender will be accepted. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to what I am saying.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am listening.

Mr. Mellish: I am glad to hear that. If the hospital was closed illegally—as has been proven in the courts—what about the considerable number of firms which held contracts with that hospital? Because the hospital was closed, they lost their contracts. I know of a catering firm which had given years of service to St. Olave's. Some building contracting firms were engaged in work at the hospital until it was closed, and their contracts were broken.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman must let me finish. I know of a small car hire firm which received the bulk of its work from St. Olave's. It provided a first-class service. Its contract was broken when the hospital closed. When St. Olave's closed, 200 beds were lost, and the services that applied to those beds, which were carried out by various firms, were lost also.

Mr. Hogg: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point. I am sure that he does not wish to ignore the distinction between the termination of a contract and the wrongful breach of a contract. Under English law, it is only the wrongful breach of a contract that gives rise to an action in damages. That right is preserved in the Bill. The termination of a contract has never of itself given rise to an action in damages.

Mr. Mellish: I am not a lawyer, but I will argue that point with the hon. Gentleman any time that he likes. It is a matter of common justice. If a firm loses its livelihood because of an action taken by a body—in this case the commissioners—which is then proved to be an illegally established body, is the hon. Gentleman saying that in law nobody wants to know about the matter? I do not believe that to be the case. I do not care how distinguished a lawyer is the hon. Gentleman.
On the assumption that the amendment is defeated, I hope that the hon. Gentleman was right when he said that anybody who has certain claims in law will not be deprived of rights of action. We shall hear whether the Secretary of State has the same interpretation of the Bill when he replies.
One of the saddest aspects of the closure of St. Olave's was that we had established a new ward for incontinent geriatric patients. They are the worst type of patient with which any hospital has to deal. The ward was specially designed to deal with those patients and contained many features such as special toilet facilities and special heating. Those facilities cost a great deal of money. When that ward was about to be opened, the silly commissioners closed the hospital.
That ward would have catered for about 20 patients, and I know of one or two people who should have gone there. I am not a scaremonger, and I am not saying that those patients would be alive today if they had been able to go to St. Olave's. The truth is that, because the hospital closed, those patients never had the chance to use the new ward. Two of those patients died. I am not saying that they would not have died anyway. Their relatives were very distressed. For many years they had asked me to do something for those patients. The residential homes provided by the borough councils would not take them because they were incontinent. Ordinary hospitals would not take them.
Stan Hardy told me that had the AHA stayed in office it would not have closed St. Olave's. It did not consider such a closure to be one of the ways to save money. It believed that in the long run it would cost more money to close St. Olave's. That is why the Secretary of State must consider the figures again. I beg of him not to take any notice of the civil servants. They will give him briefs on any subject, either for or against. That is what they are paid to do. I ask him to use his judgment in the matter. If he does that, I am sure that he will find not only that the closure did not save money but that it actually cost money.

Mr. English: I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to new clause 1.


The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) was a little unfair when referring to the new clause. He may be right about the technical drafting, but when he has been in the House a little longer he will realise that we often table amendments in a hurry in order to draw attention to a point. We do not necessarily bother about the finer details of drafting, because we know that if the House takes the point the drafting will be sorted out.
The new clause, in principle, has two advantages. The hon. Member for Grantham was a little confused when he referred to my new clause. He was thinking about the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend. I carefully left out from my new clause both the Secretary of State and all his civil servants. I made it clear that whatever action was taken should be taken by an arbitrator and not by the Secretary of State. There is that slight—and perhaps fortunate—difference between my right hon. Friend's amendments and my new clause. The hon. Member for Grantham was a little unfair in referring to the Secretary of State when discussing my new clause.
The intention behind the new clause is a simple one, namely, to protect individuals while at the sametime indemnifying the Secretary of State and his civil servants from any action that they have taken. It is phrased in rather more general terms than the amendments that have been tabled, because it covers all the amendments. We are discussing amendments Nos. 4 and 5. Amendment No. 4 refers to patients, and amendment No. 5 refers to suppliers. Later in the debate we shall discuss amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9, which refer mainly to employees.
I wish to declare two interests. The first is not a financial interest in the normal sense. During the week, when the House is sitting I live within this area health authority's boundaries, as do my wife and child. We have benefited from the services of the authority.
In the Register of Members' Interests it will be found that I am a sponsored member of the General and Municipal Workers Union. Although it does not have members in the two hospitals that were closed, it has members in St. Giles' hospital, where wards have been closed recently.
Let us suppose that all this happened in the United States. The hon. Member

for Grantham should know that if his noble father's views had prevailed and if we had a Bill of Rights, it might well include a clause such as the one contained in the American constitution—that there should be no retrospective legislation. In that case, the Bill could not come before the House at all. However, that does not mean that if an American Minister makes a mistake there is not some procedure for dealing with the matter. He could be pardoned by the President, and that would occur. But the point is that anyone who has suffered as a result of that mistake can still be provided with whatever damages he may have been able to receive without the person who has made the mistake suffering. That is the distinction. In America it could not be done by Act of Congress, but it could be done by other means, and it would be done in a different way.
The hon. Member for Grantham is learned in the law—he is also not listening—and he has said that no one would lose any existing rights. However, the Bill states:
The instrument…purporting to be a direction…shall have effect and be deemed to have had effect as if it had been a valid direction".
Let us suppose for a moment that the Bill were defeated. The present situation would then apply, and a person who had been sacked—[Interruption.] We seem to have a plethora of lawyers in the Chamber, but they are all engaged in talking to one another. Presumably, such a person who had been sacked—I should like the Secretary of State to expound on this—was sacked by an authority which, legally speaking, did not exist. As it had been appointed illegally by the Secretary of State, it had no legal powers. I am not suggesting that it was immoral, but it was illegal. Therefore, I presume that that authority had no power to sack someone. If the Bill were not passed, such a person would have the right to sue for illegal dismissal, which I would have thought was wrongful in any circumstances.
Once the Bill is passed,
the instrument…shall…be deemed to have had effect as if it had been a valid direction".
Therefore, had it been a valid direction, the commissioners automatically become legal from the point of view of their


appointment and their action would also become legal. If they sacked an individual, his dismissal would be perfectly legal. Such a person might be able to take action for wrongful or unfair dismissal in the ordinary sense, just as he could do if he had been sacked by the area health authority. However, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a case under which he would not have an action against the area health authority but rather had an action against the commissioners for sacking him at all, because as commissioners they had no legal power to sack anyone. That is the distinction. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Grantham, he failed to make that distinction during the course of his remarks.
It is not a question of preserving the existing rights of a person who in any case could appear before a tribunal in respect of unfair dismissal. The point is that any dismissals—even the closure of the hospitals or the wards was illegal —were illegal because they were done by an authority which was illegal and which had no powers in law.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: As the hon. Gentleman is seeking to define the true legal position, does he accept that under the law of England the fact that an act is unlawful does not in the absence of some other recognisable cause of action give a person a right to damages?

Mr. English: That is probably generally true. If the hon. Gentleman is right, I take it that the Secretary of State will shortly accept my new clause. If that is the case, the hon. Gentleman can have no possible objection to it. The new clause clearly states:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1 of this Bill, any person who might, but for those provisions, have had a claim for damages against any other person shall be paid such sum as he might so have been entitled to, if the amount of such sum has been agreed by an arbitrator acceptable to both persons concerned or (if agreement between them cannot be reached) by an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chancellor".
I do not think that we wish to pursue the details of that point now, because I know that hon. Members want to proceed to a Division. However, if the hon. Member for Grantham is right, the Secretary of State should not have the slightest

difficulty in accepting the new clause. On the other hand, if he is wrong the new clause is essential, because it preserves the rights of individuals which would otherwise be lost under the Bill. That is the object of the new clause, and I hope that the Secretary of State will be prepared to accept it.

Mr. Moate: Many of us have faced hospital closures in our own areas, and we can fully understand the anger and frustration of local residents when such things take place. Those feelings are felt when it is known that the authority is lawful. Therefore, one can well imagine the feelings locally when subsequently it is judged that the authority is unlawful. One can well understand why Labour Members have brought forward amendments of this kind, which seek to provide some satisfaction for local people who feel that they have suffered—I am thinking particularly of patients—as a result of the actions of an unlawfully constituted authority.
Although my right hon. Friend accepts full responsibility for what has happened, nevertheless all of us who defend what he did have a degree of responsibility and must approach the whole question with an element of humility. If there is a case where people seem to be deprived of their legal rights, and if amendments are put forward which would correct that, the Committee should look at them in an open-minded and humble fashion and decide whether it is right to accept them.
I approach the amendment on two grounds. Are people being deprived of legal rights which they otherwise would have had, or will they be given rights that are not enjoyed by other people in other areas? That is what prompts me to make a brief intervention. Two propositions that have been put forward cause me some concern. The right hon. Members for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) and for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) suggested that a large number of people who might otherwise have been admitted to hospital were prevented from obtaining hospital treatment, as a result of which they would have a claim for compensation against the hospital authority.
On the grounds of equity, leaving aside the question of legality, it seems to me that that is a proposition which would be hard for any hon. Member to accept. If the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East


sees himself as being responsible one day for the administration of the Health Service, I cannot believe that he would countenance a proposition whereby an individual who failed to receive hospital treatment, and failed to gain admission to a hospital, could sue anyone for compensation for the suffering that was caused.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: The distinction which the hon. Gentleman must draw, in the normal circumstances which he is adumbrating, is that the individual has his rights. But such an individual had no rights under the illegal group which was appointed. That is the issue which is at stake. If the hon. Gentleman supports his right hon. Friend tonight, he is trying to make legal something which was clearly illegal, as a result of which injuries were suffered.

Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman is describing the purpose of the Bill, but I do not accept that in normal lawful circumstances a person who is denied admission to hospital has rights to claim compensation because he has not received treatment to which he believes he is entitled. That is my point. Many people are denied admission to hospital. Lawful closures are taking place in many other areas, all of which are deeply regretted, and there are people who feel strongly that they should be entitled to compensation.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: It is illegal.

Mr. Moate: We know that it is illegal. The object of the Bill is to remedy that situation. We can deal with the problem only by enacting this simple Bill. One would be giving people rights that individuals in my constituency and other parts of the country do not have. Opposition Members referred to people who have been denied access to hospitals. It was said that it was dreadful to transfer from one hospital to another. I am sure that is so. However, it has happened before. Are we to open up the right to claim compensation in other circumstances?
On Second Reading, several hon. Members strenuously argued that the Secretary of State had been ill advised to proceed in that way. They said that it was wrong to assume that the area health authority would resist making the necessary savings which would bring it within

the cash limits. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. It the area health authority had made those savings, it would have taken similar action to that taken by the commissioners. Therefore, I cannot believe that a logical case exists for arguing that individuals have suffered solely as a result of the appointment of commissioners.
Those people might have faced the same problems. It could be argued—as those who kept within the cash limits did—that those savings could and should have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out that if any Back Benchers were to feel that individuals had been deprived of legal rights which they would otherwise have had, we should look at the amendment differently.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: This has been a valuable debate. Hon. Members have made their speeches in a most moderate and reasonable manner. I am grateful for that. We gave the Bill a Second Reading on Tuesday. The circumstances behind the Bill might well have justified some emotion. However, hon. Members in all parties have approached the issue in a reasonable manner. That has helped the case.
I shall assert once again the purpose of the Bill. Perhaps the purpose has been lost sight of once or twice. The Bill seeks to regularise a position that arose through no act of ill faith on anyone's part. It was a genuine mistake. It resulted in a legal direction which, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) has pointed out, vitiated the appointment of the commissioners. Everything that the commissioners purported to do was therefore illegal. The House gave the Bill a Second Reading on Tuesday and in so doing it appears to have accepted the general intention behind the Bill. The Bill seeks to regularise the position and to ensure that the commissioners should not, and neither should any of the officers of the authority nor I myself—although that was not made much of during Second Reading—find ourselves open to attack through the courts. Someone might claim to have been disadvantaged as a result of events that took place between 1 August 1979 and 31 March 1980.
Hon. Members have rightly addressed themselves to the question of whether the


Bill goes further than is needed to achieve its purpose. Does the Bill in any way exonerate the commissioners or their officers from any legal action that might have been brought by a patient had their appointment been legal from the beginning? I can give as firm an assurance as anyone who is not a lawyer can. Indeed, I left the law more years ago than I care to remember. The Bill solely seeks to regularise the position that has arisen as a result of that invalid direction. It does not seek to deprive anyone of any legal rights that he would have had against the authority, or against the commissioners, had the appointment been valid. That is an important point.
Legal action might have been taken by patients, suppliers, employees and others against the authority or against the commissioners. Such actions might have been brought under the law of tort or contract or on the ground of wrongful dismissal. Such actions will be preserved if the case would have been actionable had the appointment been valid. The amendments and new clause concern the question whether there should be some additional right of redress. That is the substantial point. I have used the word "redress" because it is a general term and several different procedures have been mentioned during the debate. That additional right of redress might arise merely because the initial appointment of the commissioners was invalid and might therefore provide some additional cause of action.
During the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr Hogg) in the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), it became clear that the issue concerned whether there should be some additional cause of action simply because my original direction was invalid. Several different propositions have been put forward. I hope that I am not being unkind when I say that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) argued in a by-and-large manner. He argued that anyone who had been disadvantaged should have a right of action merely because the appointment had been illegal. He said that that gave the individual a right that he would not have had if my direction had been lawful. I find that proposition difficult to sustain.
The hon. Member suggested that constituents in the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham area should be given some additional right that is not given to those living in Hounslow and Hammersmith. Merton and Wandsworth, or in the City and East London. All those areas have had to face the prospect of hospitals being closed and of changes of use being made because the health authorities in those areas have lived within their limits. Why is it suggested that merely because of the illegality of my direction patients should have an additional right if they have been treated by a doctor or referred to a consultant in that area? I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). I agree that we are all potential patients.

Mr. English: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his exposition. He is more precise than the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). Does he not agree that some cases must be clearer than others? It would be difficult to prove that a tenderer who had failed to get a contract would have got it if the authority had been valid. However, it is not particularly difficult to prove that someone who got the sack on a ground other than misconduct, for example redundancy, might not have been dismissed. It would be difficult to prove that he would have got the sack if the authority had been a valid authority. Some cases must be easy to prove on the precise facts, but others can probably never be proved.

Mr. Jenkin: With respect, I do not believe that that is so. Once one goes over the barrier of cases that could have been brought if everything had been validly done, into the grey area of cases where people say that they were injured only because it was the commissioners and not the authority, that the commissioners were illegal and they therefore demand action, I do not see where the line can conceivably be drawn. If we are to have a validation Act of this sort, with the implied indemnity involved, it is inevitable that it has to cover everything. At the same time, to reiterate the point that I made at the outset, it must and does firmly preserve any right of action that could properly have been brought had the appointment been valid.


I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
6 pm
The question arises of what happened. The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) asked what had been done. A large number of things were done in the course of the commissioners' actions. I shall come to how much would have been done had we left the authority in. The case was made forcefully from the Labour Benches on Second Reading that it would have lived within its cash limits. The fact is that the commissioners were there and they made the decisions.
I have a long list of the decisions made. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West has the minutes of the meeting at the end of August, which includes some of those decisions. It has never been concealed that some of the decisions taken under the remit that I gave the commissioners—namely, to bring the spending of the authority within the cash limit for the year—were bound to affect the services to patients.

Mr. Orme: I do not expect the Minister to read out the long list of decisions, but we are entitled to see it, and perhaps he will place it in the Library.

Mr. Jenkin: May I consider that, as I do not wish to give a categorical assurance, but I take the right hon. Gentleman's point?
Part of my discussion on 29 February with members of the authority concerned setting up machinery whereby they could become aware of decisions that had been taken and receive the information so that they could read themselves in. When they took over on 1 April, they should be as much aware as the commissioners of the state of the health authority.
I shall look into the matter and see whether we can make a report available to hon. Members. They are entitled to see it.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: There is a discrepancy between the right hon. Gentleman's statement on Second Reading, when he said that a few decisions had been made, and the long list that he now mentions.

Mr. Jenkin: I have that list here. The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the minutes of a regional health authority and

will know that a great many matters go through minutes. Some of those related to decisions affecting patients. They in-included such things as the closure of St. John's hospital, Lewisham, and the closure of wards and beds in the hospital of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). I shall always think of St. Olave's as the right hon. Gentleman's hospital.
The point raised by the right hon. Member for Salford, West, which caused us a good deal of anxiety, concerns instructions given to kidney units and the cardiac unit at King's College hospital to slow down operations so that those units, too, should live within their budgets. These were difficult decisions, and it is not disclosing anything to say that the chairman of the commissioners consulted Ministers before finally deciding that that was what he would ask the commissioners to recommend. They were difficult decisions; that has never been concealed.
What happens if there are patients who feel that they were disadvantaged? Should the question of the illegality of the original appointment make any difference? That is what the whole group of amendments is about.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West said that the courts should be given a chance to examine the matter, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham pointed out, the amendments moved do not involve the courts but give me a discretion. My advice is the same. It is doubtful whether it was given in a way that would even be justiciable in the courts. Administrative discretion is the alternative. Should I merely have administrative discretion to shell out public money to people who feel that they have been disadvantaged? I hope that I am not putting it unkindly.
The new clause of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) would establish an arbitration procedure that would do the same thing. All the amendments have one thing in common. They suggest that the illegality of the original appointment should give some cause of action that would not otherwise have been there. That is extremely difficult for the House of Commons to accept.
How could it be argued with any degree of certainty that the area health authority, had it remained, would not


have done the same things? I do not know whether it would. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey assured us that Mr. Hardy firmly told him that whatever else he would have done he would not have taken steps in relation to St. Olave's.

Mr. Mellish: Because he did not think that there would be a saving.

Mr. Jenkin: Because he did not think that there was a saving. Two of the commissioners were members of the authority—Mr. Prideaux and Miss Nutta11—and were fully familiar with its affairs. Sir Frank Hartley is an immensely experienced administrator, formerly vice-chancellor of the London university and head of the London school of pharmacy, and a very distinguished man. The commissioners came to the conclusion, on the basis of the information provided by the area administrator and the area treasurer, that it was a way to save money in order to bring their spending within the cash limits. No one can be certain.

Mr. Mellish: To get the record absolutely straight, let me say that Sir Frank told me that the only reason for closing St. Olave's was that he did not see any other way to comply with the Minister's request to save £.12 million in the district. It was with great reluctance that it was decided that the only way was to close the unit completely. At no time did Sir Frank try to justify that.

Mr. Jenkin: I do not quarrel with one word that the right hon. Gentleman says. I shall not repeat what I said on Second Reading, but I fully recognise that that hospital is bound to have a long-term future serving the right hon. Gentleman's constituents and others in that part of London. It merely illustrates the harsh financial necessity of the world that we live in.
On 8 December 1978 the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), wrote to the chairman of the authority. He said:
In plain terms your Authority seems intent on spending money which is not its to spend.
That is the whole essence of the case and the basis on which the cash limit system operates. It was not the authority's money to spend.
It has been established in the courts that it is the duty of the Secretary of State under the National Health Service Act to provide a Health Service for the nation. It is a duty that can be justiciable, and there have been cases before the courts. In the Hincks case, just over a year ago—I cannot go into details because it is subject to appeal—the judge, in considering whether the Secretary of State was complying with his duty, said:
'to such extent as he considers necessary…' means, in my judgment, that financial resources can and should properly be taken into account by him".
The judge went on to say that in that case he had done so. The right hon. Member for Norwich, North was the defendant in that case.

Mr. Christopher Price: I do not think that anyone denies that financial resources are an element that anyone—he or the area health authority—should properly take into account. Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept that although 90 per cent. of the commissioners' actions might have been taken by the AHA, a proportion was intrinsic to the nature of the commissioners and might be viated through that very fact? They are the sort of actions that the commissioners would have taken but the AHA would never have taken. These actions should be subject to judicial review, extending even to the Secretary of State's direction. The right hon. Gentleman should not be so confident that the direction could never be reviewed by the courts.

Mr. Jenkin: I appreciate the point that one must be doubly cautious about expressing any firm legal opinion on anything. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that he was a much less distinguished lawyer than I. He must be a very undistinguished lawyer indeed to say that. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was present in the Chamber when I explained that my direct experience of the law disappeared well over 20 years ago. I would not claim any special expertise.
The essence of the case made in the amendments and by every right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken from the Opposition side is that the fact of the illegality somehow entitles those who feel that they have been injured to have some form of redress that they would not


otherwise have had. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West said that there might have been a few decisions that the commissioners took but the area health authority would not have taken. That could only be founded on hypothesis. But hypothesis seems a poor foundation to establish some form of redress.
I am bound to advise the Committee that it would not be right to accept amendment No. 4 which has been moved in relation to patients who feel that they have been disadvantaged. Amendment No. 5 is even more difficult, for the reasons related to suppliers indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham. Nor can I recommend new clause 1. As hon. Members recognise, the thread running through the amendments is that people in these circumstances should have an additional claim that would not have been available had they lived in the area of other health authorities in London or anywhere else.
6.15 pm
My hon. Friends the Members for Faversham (Mr. Moate), for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and for Peterborough have indicated that the case seems to be based on the proposition that some additional right arises by reason of the illegality, which brings an entitlement to compensation. That cannot be sustained. There is no way that one can draw the line. Everyone accepts that what happened was done in good faith. One wishes that it had been done otherwise. One wishes that it had never been necessary. One wishes that the instructions of the right hon. Member for Norwich, North had been carried out and that the health authority had succeeded in bringing its spending within cash limits, not only in 1979–80 but in 1977–78 and 1978–79. These problems would not have arisen then. The fact is that such action was not taken. All the difficulties then arose.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) raised the case of a constituent that must have touched the sympathies of everyone. I invite the hon. Gentleman to write to me. I should like to look into the matter. Admission to hospital is always a clinical decision and a matter for consultants. I know that cardiac consultants at King's felt deeply aggrieved when asked if they would slow down admissions, but they were already over the budget. It is fair to say that they

were asked only to hold back spending to the 1977–8 level, in real terms. That is precisely what the area health authority agreed, in the end, to do. That was before the Budget and before the effects of inflation. Even if one were to accept the line taken by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, it would be difficult to say that the hon. Gentleman's case would fall on the wrong side. If the hon. Gentleman will let me have details, I shall look into the case.
On general merits, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Opposition case. I must therefore ask the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Orme: We have listened with close interest to the Secretary of State. We cannot assume that the commissioners acted legally and that actions taken over the last 10 months must therefore be accepted as those of a legal regime. This is a unique case. I do not think that in recent years we have come across a similar case. It demands special action. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) that the Secretary of State created these problems. In a sense, the right hon. Gentleman should answer for them and adjudicate in cases that are outstanding. I ask my hon. Friends to divide on amendment No. 4.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I take issue with the Secretary of State. He has not dealt with the issue that by putting in the commissioners illegally in the first place he took away the rights of the people of the area, who were unable to go through normal procedures. Whether or not he thought he was right, the fact is that that was the action that he took. The right hon. Gentleman withdrew deliberately from the people of the area the rights that they would normally have possessed through the area health authority. He took away the democratic process. He cannot argue, now that he finds himself in trouble, that the matter can be put right by indemnifying himself and saying that he must not give anyone more rights than existed before. The right hon. Gentleman took rights away.
The Secretary of State's terminology worries me. He says that he would be open to attack in the courts. If one makes a mistake of the magnitude that he made, that is not a bad thing. It


would perhaps dissuade others from doing the same. The right hon. Gentleman argues that others would also be open to attack. Sir Frank Hartley, an experienced administrator, should have made sure that he was all right before accepting what happened.
The right hon. Gentleman argues against giving additional rights. No one is arguing about additional rights. The fact is that people have been hurt and injured by an illegal issue. It is no use the Secretary of State's trying to say that it does not matter. People do matter. The rights of people matter.
I was surprised by the casual attitude of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). I have never had a high regard for lawyers. Having heard his contemptuous remarks about the rights of the people of the area, I feel sorry for the people of Grantham if they ever go to

him for help. His approach was outrageous.

The amendments may be imperfect in drafting. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are ways to take care of that difficulty. He has already indicated that he will look at the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) referred, to see whether anything can be done. He has, therefore, accepted the principle of amendment No. 4. That is what the amendment is about. I believe that in the closing phrases of his speech the Secretary of State accepted the principle of amendment No. 4. I beg the Committee to support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment he made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 107, Noes 144.

Division No. 220]
AYES
[6.19 pm


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Grant, John (Islington C)
Palmer, Arthur


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Parry, Robert


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pendry, Tom


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Cartwright, John
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Richardson, Jo


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Haynes, Frank
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)


Cook, Robin F.
Heffer, Eric S.
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Hooley, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Cryer, Bob
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Sandelson, Neville


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor
Sever, John


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Kerr, Russell
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silverman, Julius


Dixon, Donald
Leighton, Ronald
Soley, Clive


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spearing, Nigel


Dormand, Jack
Litherland, Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dubs, Alfred
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Stott, Roger


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McCusker, H.
Straw, Jack


Eadie, Alex
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Eastham, Ken
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


English, Michael
McKelvey, William
Tilley, John


Evans, John (Newton)
McNally, Thomas
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Field, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fitt, Gerard
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian
Welsh, Michael


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williiams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morton, George
Winnick, David


Freud, Clement
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland



Garrett, John (Norwich S)
O'Neill, Martin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


George, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. James Tinn and


Graham, Ted
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Mr. Hugh McCartney




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Berry, Hon Anthony
Brinton, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Best, Keith
Brotherton, Michael


Arnold, Tom
Bevan, David Gilroy
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)


Aspinwall, Jack
Blackburn, John
Browne, John (Winchester)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Body, Richard
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Buck, Antony


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Banks, Robert
Braine, Sir Bernard
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Bendal, Vivian
Bright, Graham
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)




Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Suttton)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Parris, Matthew


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Patten, Johr (Oxford)


Colvin, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Cope, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Rhodes James, Robert


Costain, A. P.
Kilfedder, James A.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Critchley, Julian
Lang, Ian
Rifkind, Malcolm


Crouch, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rossi, Hugh


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawson, Nigel
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Dover, Denshore
Lee, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speller, Tony


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Eggar, Timothy
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lyell, Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, J.


Farr, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
MacGregor, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Thornton, Malcolm


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Trippler, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Major, John
Waddington, David


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Marlow, Tony
Wakeham, John


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Mates, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waller, Gary


Goodhart, Philip
Mellor, David
Ward, John


Goodhew, Victor
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Goodlad, Alastair
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Watson, John


Gorst, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moate, Roger
Wheeler, John


Grylls, Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Whitney, Raymond


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Wickenden, Keith


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Murphy, Christopher
Wolfson, Mark


Hawksley, Warren
Needham, Richard



Heddle, John
Nelson, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Neubert, Michael
Mr. Tony Newton and


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Peter Brooke


Hooson, Tom

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Orme: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 13, at end add:
(2) The pension rights of any employee of the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Area Health Authority (Teaching) shall not be prejudiced either in respect of contributions payable or benefits earned as a result of any action taken under the instrument of 1st August 1979.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Area Health Authority (Teaching) to review the case of any employee whose pension rights have been so prejudiced.
I shall be brief, because basically this is a probing amendment. I ask the Secretary of State to look at the terms of our amendment. We are concerned that any action taken by the commission between the time it came into office last year and 31 March this year should not prejudice the pension rights of any employee. It is possible that an employee had an increase in his emoluments which would mean an increase in his pension rights. Will there now be a reduction in salary which will affect these pension rights?
The Secretary of State must be aware that pension rights are very important to employees of all grades. They guard them very jealously. We are concerned that the illegal actions of last year might have prejudiced the rights of employees and their pension entitlements. I do not need to embellish the point any further.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I can give the Committee a reasonable reassurance. The Bill will not do anything but validate what has happened. It will leave the position of those people about to retire as it would have been if my direction had not been invalid.
That is not to say that there might not have been changes in people's emoluments. Some people may have been persuaded to take early retirement as a result of the commissioners' efforts to reduce costs and to bring spending within the limits, but much of this would have happened anyway. One of the recommendations that the area health authority accepted on 30 July last year was the now famous resolution:
To achieve the lower staffing levels necessary to reduce expenditure without compulsory redundancy, schemes must be authorised


to encourage voluntary retirement and voluntary redundancy, and to effect redeployment of staff where necessary, there should be a vigorous review of all vacancies with a view to delaying replacement or eliminating the post".
This recommendation was subsequently accepted and adopted by the commissioners. This is a clear case where many or most of the changes that have taken place in the deployment of staff, including earlier retirement, could well have happened anyway.
Of course, it could be argued that a few people may have been led to exercise the option of early retirement in preference to an offer of alternative employment in the circumstances. In theory, at least, the authority would have been in the same position as the commissioners, but I know of no way in which it could be conceivably possible to draw a distinction between what the commissioners did and what the authority might have done.
I have quoted the resolution passed by the authority before the direction was given, but there is no way of ascertaining what that authority might subsequently have done had it remained in office. Labour Members have argued, both today and on Tuesday, that it had every intention of complying with the cash limits. I do not think that that is true, but if it were there is no possible way of knowing what would have happened.
If individuals were in any way treated unlawfully, in the sense that they would have had a claim against the authority or the commissioners, they will find that that claim is fully preserved in the provisions of the Bill. The amendment would not be appropriate. Therefore, I cannot advise the Committee to accept it.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I think that there is another aspect to this. When the commissioners were brought in, many employees found it unacceptable to work for such people, and therefore they could have been persuaded, if offered certain undertakings, to take an early retirement and go. When the Secretary of State put the commissioners in over the heads of the democratically established people, and when the commissioners began the closure process, many people would have gone elsewhere, but they foresaw a period of hassle and trouble. There were difficulties. The trade unions were ill at ease

and discussions within them did not lead anyone to feel that it was worth while continuing, because it looked like the demise of the Health Service in that part of London. Some employees might easily have been persuaded to get out and lose the advantages that they might otherwise have had.
Because the Secretary of State's action was illegal, these people have a right to know whether they can have a "recount". The Secretary of State has said that he is very sorry. All that he is saying is that everything that has been done is legal even though it was illegal. People are being prejudiced. I know that the Secretary of State would like to pretend that none of this ever really happened, but it did. People were persuaded to leave their employment earlier than they would otherwise have done, and had the normal processes been operating and had there been a much more harmonious relationship between the unions and the area health authority certain help would have been given. Had the AHA been operating normally, it is likely that these people would not have accepted early retirement or the need to transfer to other work. Therefore, because of the circumstances that exist—not the circumstances that we would like to exist—they have a right.
My right hon. Friend said that this was a probing amendment. There should be elbow room, so that if someone has clearly been deprived of his rights he may obtain redress. There was no longer a relationship between the trade unions negotiating for the staff side and the commissioners in the same way as there was a relationship between the trade unions and the area health authority. That makes a difference. People should be reemployed if possible.

Mr. Orme: I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). We cannot assume that events occurred in a legal atmosphere when they took place in an illegal atmosphere. We are not satisfied with the Secretary of State's reply. I shall not press the amendment at this stage. However, if injustices take place we intend to bring these cases to his notice. The Minister and the incoming area health authority might consider ratifying the decisions that were taken, thereby stabilising the situation. I understand that


most employees remained. If there are difficulties, the incoming AHA might be able to ratify those decisions and remove the anomalies. Will the Minister take note of that point?

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I take note of the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt the authority will wish to consider the position.
Referring to the points made by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), I should point out that we are dealing with few people. That is not a reason for not ensuring that justice is done. If injustice were done to one person, the Committee would wish to consider it. My information suggests that no one was made redundant or retired compulsorily. All those whose posts disappeared were offered alternative employment. There have been 25 voluntary redundancies since 1 August. In the Guy's district there were seven. One part-time clerical worker and six domestic workers accepted redundancy payments. Two are still employed but are considering early retirement. In the King's district one member of the clerical staff accepted a voluntary redundancy payment. In the Lewisham district there were seven voluntary redundancies and seven voluntary early retirements. In the Guy's district 20 staff resigned to take other jobs.
The hon. Gentleman said that perhaps these people felt that the conditions had become so awful that they were moved to change their jobs, although otherwise they might have stayed. It is difficult to see how that could possibly form the basis of a special claim. I do not see how one could judge whether one person made a decision for one reason and another person for another reason.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the superannuation rights should be safeguarded and preserved. The Bill emphatically does that. There is no reason why anything prejudiced by the illegality should not have been put right by the Bill. The Bill was carefully drawn to achieve that result. No one seriously suggests that it does not.

Mr. Orme: We take note of what the Secretary of State said. We shall judge him by his actions. If injustice is created, we expect him to take steps to put it right. We hope that the AHA will take

note of the point that we made about its ratifying previous decisions.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 8, page 1, line 13, at end add—
'(2) Any employee who has incurred loss of emoluments as a result of actions taken pursuant to the instrument dated 1st August 1979 shall receive compensation for that loss until such date as the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Area Health Authority (Teaching) reaches a final decision on the said employee's future employment, such compensation to be assessed on the basis of increasing the employee's emoluments to a level equal to the average of his emoluments calculated on a weekly basis for the three months prior to the date of loss.
(3) The date of loss is to be agreed in negotiation between the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Area Health Authority (Teaching) and the employee concerned or any representative to be appointed by him to act on his behalf.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 13, at end add—
'(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that any National Health Service employee who ceased to be employed by the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Health Area by virtue of any decision reached by the Commissioners appointed under the aforesaid instrument of 1st August 1979 shall have the choice of resuming his previous employment and forgoing any emoluments paid to him for loss of office/or accepting the status quo, such choice to be exercised in writing and addressed to the Area Administrator.'.

Mr. Moyle: The discussions on the Bill have revealed the formula adopted. All the actions of the commissioners running the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham area health authority since they were appointed on 1 August 1979 are to be ratified and made legal. The improvement in the position of those who benefited as a result will be confirmed. A person who was promoted by the commissioners will remain promoted. We shall deal with the employment force whose position was made worse as a result of the illegal decisions of the commissioners for the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health area. Under the formula adopted in the Bill, large numbers of people will remain prejudiced.
On Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State claimed with confidence—the Secretary of State did so again this evening—that there were no cases of compulsory redundancy in the health area. I see that the Secretary of State nods. I am not sure how the Government can be confident about that. Yesterday I asked the Secretary of State what was the number of unfilled vacancies among the staff of the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham area health authority (teaching) on 1 February of the current year, compared with 1 October 1978. I was told that that information was not held centrally. It would be difficult to make an assessment about the precise number of compulsory redundancies in the health area if the information for which I asked was not held centrally. We take the matter with a little reservation.
We were told that there were a number of voluntary redundancies in the area. The Secretary of State gave the figures. I do not challenge those.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). A number of people felt that the conditions in the health area, as a result of the administration of the commissioners, were such that they wanted to get out. The amendments propose that there should be a review of those cases. If those who voluntarily accepted redundancy now wish to change their minds and return to employment in the area health authority, now that it is about to take over, they will have the opportunity to volunteer their services to the authority and to be accepted. The compensation to which they may be entitled under the amendment may then be assessed and agreed with them. That applies to loss of emoluments and loss of employment.
At least one case of constructive redundancy occurred. It was not covered precisely by the amendments. This might be a good opportunity to raise the matter. I refer to the position of Mr. Stan Hardy, the chairman of the area health authority, who was a particularly loyal supporter of the Secretary of State. On the famous night of 30 July he sought to have a resolution accepted by his area health authority which would have pleased the Secretary of State. For his pains, it was thrown out. In the period

during which the authority was in suspension he remained active. He sat on staff appeals committees to allow that side of the authority's work to go forward. Nevertheless, in October his salary, which amounted to about £5,000 a year, was removed from him. It would be interesting and worth while to know how this case of constructive redundancy will be dealt with.
There are, of course, a finite number of cases with which we are concerned. We are not asking the Secretary of State to cast his bread upon the waters. Most of the redundancies or losses of emoluments which occurred and which have to be compensated for would probably fall in respect of St. Olave's hospital. There, of course, nobody who wanted to carry on working for the Health Service was prevented from doing so, but such people were transferred from St. Olave's to Guy's or New Cross hospital in most cases. The idea was that they should be transferred at their St. Olave's salary, but a number of them were earning bonuses at St. Olave's and the terms and conditions of service at either New Cross or Guy's were such that they were unable to earn a bonus, so the result of the transfer was that they lost money.
We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) that there was some disagreement as to whether it was sensible to try to achieve the balance everybody wanted to achieve by closing St. Olave's. Indeed, the area health authority gave pretty strong advice to the effect that it would be financially bad to try to achieve its balance of payments by closing the hospital. So it is quite likely that if the area health authority had carried on none of the employees at St. Olave's would have lost money. Indeed, had they known at the time they were shifted from St. Olave's that they were being told to go by people who had no right in law to be there, it may well be that they would have put up a more vigorous resistance to the whole scheme.
So we should like to know from the Secretary of State how he views these amendments and the principle embodied in them.
We have two other points. First, we hope that if compensation is paid it will not be out of funds allocated for patient care within the area. Secondly, we


would normally leave matters of this sort to negotiation between the appropriate trade unions or employees and the area health authority, but this is a unique situation and we feel that the employees concerned require some sort of legal protection by writing these amendments into the Bill.

Mr. Christopher Price: I should like to speak briefly to these amendments and, in particular, to underline some of the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) made.
I think the Committee needs to be reminded of the saga of Stan Hardy, who, I think, has been very badly treated. If the Secretary of State thinks back not just to July 30 1979 but to the events of March 1979, which I think must be considered together, he will remember that in March 1979, in the rather rough and tumble pre-election atmosphere, he issued a press release on. Conservative Central Office notepaper accusing Stan Hardy, quite wrongly, of moving a resolution in the area health authority backing COHSE and NUPE in their industrial action and calling upon my right hon. Friend the the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) to dismiss Mr Hardy as chairman of the area health authority. These things tend to be forgotten.
I think that the matter was best summed up in a diary paragraph in the Evening Standard of 2 March 1979 entitled "Laurels for Hardy?":
Poor Patrick Jenkin. Earnestly seeking to make a bit of capital out of what looked at first sight like a howler from the Lambeth Health Authority the Tory spokesman on Social Services launched a vitriolic attack on its chairman, one Stanley Hardy.
In a lettter to David Ennals, Jenkin accused Hardy of patting the health service unions on the back for their industrial action. Such behaviour Jenkin concluded rendered Hardy unfit to continue as chairman.
In fact Hardy was only guilty of supporting a somewhat Tory move to curtail industrial action in the health service. When the letter was published he was more than a little annoyed at the slur.
Hardy has now written to Jenkin demanding a full withdrawal of the accusations and an explicit apology. If this is not forthcoming I gather from Gordon Marsh, Hardy's number two"—
I think that is slightly inaccurate—
that Jenkin may find himself the subject of a libel action.

So the law seemed to be flitting around this area even before these events took place. In the event, the matter was settled in an exchange on the Floor of the House of Commons, and I think the right hon. Gentleman admitted that Mr. Hardy had moved no such motion and that what he had alleged was not so.
It is in this context that we must look at the treatment of Mr. Hardy from 1 August onwards. When the area health authority was purported to have been put in the fridge by the Secretary of State on 1 August the announcement was made at a press conference. Both the Secretary of State and I remember it very well, even if our versions of it may differ a little in emphasis from time to time. I asked the Secretary of State at that press conference—where, since Parliament was in recess, I was present in my capacity as a journalist rather than as a Member of Parliament—what Mr Hardy's position was and whether his honorarium as chairman of the area health authority would be maintained. The Secretary of State gave me an absolutely explicit answer that it would.
At about this time the honoraria of members of area health authorities quite coincidentally—this is another of those great coincidences in connection with this affair—almost doubled. In fact, some of them more than doubled. Certainly Mr. Hardy was then receiving about £2,000 per year, and now he will be entitled to about £6,000 a year, so it has almost trebled. Almost simultaneously, on 1 October, the Secretary of State went back on his pledge to continue the payment of this honorarium, saying that it would not be appropriate—I think that was the word that he used in a letter to me—that the honorarium be continued.
Judging by the Secretary of State's rather cavalier attitude to Mr. Hardy and the mistakes that he made in the past, I would have thought that he would consider this rather more carefully, because, as I understand it, the whole basis of the Secretary of State's case in using section 86 was that the area health authority had not been dismissed but had simply been suspended. If that was so, there was no case that I could see—and there was no case that he could see on 1 August, certainly—for the chairman of the area health authority—to whom rather belatedly at that time the Secretary of State


was beginning to pay a tribute; certainly he did at the press conference on 1 August—for depriving the chairman, who had throughout tried to do his duty as he saw it, of his honorarium.
Nevertheless, it was chopped. I do not know why, but I should like the Secretary of State when replying to the debate to give us a few more reasons than that it was not "appropriate" for his decision on 1 October last year to end Stan Hardy's salary.
The Committee will agree that, after this saga, at the very least common justice demands that Stan Hardy should get his back pay. I see that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) is assenting. If he and I agree, who is the Secretary of State to disagree? I ask the Secretary of State to explain why he chopped Stan Hardy's salary and to give the Committee an assurance that he will make up his back pay.
7 pm
Whatever may be the legal position, the Secretary of State must accept that there are employees and former employees of the area health authority who, because they have taken redundancy in circumstances in which they otherwise might not have done, suffer from a sense of injustice and feel that they have a claim on the authority. The difficulty that the authority has in meeting those claims lies in the uncertainty of the law. I suggest to the Secretary of State that he could accept the amendment or, if not, accept the spirit of the amendment and assure individuals who have lost a great deal of money as a result of these illegally appointed commissioners that they will in suitable circumstances receive some compensation.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East that it would be unfair if the meagre funds available for patient care were to be further eroded by the payment of compensation. My second request to the Secretary of State is that if he agrees that in certain cases compensation should be available, compensation should not come out of the ordinary funds of the area health authority but should be an ex-gratia payment in recognition of the fact that the Secretary of State made a mistake. The Secretary of State must realise that both local auth-

orities and the area health authority will be very pinched for funds, and if compensation is to be paid it would be unfair for it to come out of the funds available for patient care.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) spoke about Mr. Hardy. On many occasions—certainly at the press conference on 1 August and subsequently in the House, including, I think, last Tuesday—I have paid tribute to the efforts that Mr. Hardy made over the years, not just at the meeting on 30 July, to persuade his colleagues on the area health authority that they had an obligation to bring their spending within the limits of the money made available to them by the region. He was tireless in that. The fact that he was not always successful cannot be held to his discredit. He tried but he did not succeed.
On the question of Mr. Hardy's salary after the suspension of the authority, I made the statement I did at the press conference because it did not seem to me at the time that the non-payment of his salary would have been justified. Subsequently, I discovered that there were all sorts of Treasury regulations relating to the performance of the duties. If the duties are not being performed, it is difficult to justify the payment of emoluments. The salary had been stopped without my being aware of it. It was not until the hon. Member for Lewisham, West wrote and pointed out that that had happened that I made inquiries and promptly reinstated the salary until 31 October. So three months' salary was paid, which I felt, in the circumstances, was not unfair.
I give an undertaking to the hon. Gentleman that I shall look into the position that arises as a result of the illegality. Clearly, there are special circumstances. Mr. Hardy, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, has played a full part in helping the commissioners to deal with staff appeals, and I should like to see whether there is a way to deal with this matter fairly.
When Mr. Hardy came to see me in October or November—I cannot remember precisely when—he had had the backdated increase in the emoluments that had been introduced. He told me that he felt that he had been treated not unfairly.


I understand that Mr. Hardy is a kindly man and that he was anxious not to embarrass me in what could have been embarrassing circumstances.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that I have not discussed this matter with Mr. Hardy? There has been no pressure from him. Now that the illegality has been discovered, I am simply putting forward the view that, in common justice, Mr. Hardy is entitled to full compensation for his salary by whatever means the Secretary of State may find.

Mr. Jenkin: I shall certainly look into the matter. I know that the hon. Gentleman has the not uninfluential support of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, (Mr. Crouch), who, as a member of the regional health authority, is more closely in touch with these matters than are most hon. Members.
I deal next with the questions raised by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle). The amendments seek to provide remedies for employees who find themselves disadvantaged, as they would see it, as a result of decisions taken by the commissioners. The disadvantages could take the form of loss of emoluments, loss of overtime, or transferring to a job that carries a lower salary.
As I said in reply to the earlier amendment, the policy of the area was to reduce staffing levels, and it had undertaken to make some reductions in spending. Reductions in overtime working are often made in preference to cutting out jobs, and that was being done here. No possible criticism could attach to the commissioners, nor could there conceivably be any rights established if the commissioners, in pursuance of their task, had found ways of maintaining services but reducing the amount of overtime being worked. In trying to keep cash spending within the limits that have been set, health authorities find every possible way of cutting their costs, and the reduction of excessive and unnecessary overtime is common practice.
I remind the Committee that in paragraph 100 of its report on NHS ancillary staffs and ambulance men published last August the Clegg commission drew attention to the fact that it had had evidence of unsatisfactory working practices, unnecessary overtime, overmanning,

bogus incentive agreements, and so on. It has been my policy, as Secretary of State, following that report, to urge authorities, including the commissioners, to use every possible means to eliminate unnecessary expenses that are being incurred through these practices. When I announced the extra cash limits to finance the Clegg award to the ancillaries and ambulance men, I made a specific deduction to take account of the Clegg commission's view that its pay awards made those practices unnecessary. That put pressure on health authorities to squeeze out those practices.
If there have been cases in the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham area where overtime has not been worked, where overmanning has been reduced and where unsatisfactory bonus agreements have been eliminated, that would be fully in accordance with the Government's policy—a policy which the Government have pressed not only on Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham but on every health authority in the country. I hope that that policy has the support of all hon. Members. It cannot be right to justify payments to staff in those circumstances when they would absorb money that would otherwise be available for patient care.
If we accept the amendment we shall place the authority in a specially favoured position. Anyone would be able to claim that he had been disadvantaged by the exercise of this policy and that he should be entitled to be reinstated and to have back his overtime. That would be contrary to the policy exercised across the country, and it would put the authority in a unique and privileged position enjoyed by no other health authority.
The same would be true of amendment No. 9, which seeks to grant automatic rights of reinstatement, particularly to those who may have opted for early retirement or voluntary redundancy in preference to alternative employment. As I said in reply to the previous amendment, the numbers involved are small, and no example has been produced of someone feeling that he had been forced into doing something that would not have arisen had the authority been in office. The reinstatment called for in the amendment would not be practical in a constantly changing situation. No one could be guaranteed the right to return to the same job.
I cannot advise the Committee to accept amendments Nos. 8 and 9. I do not believe that there have been any cases that can be regarded as so unfair as to merit special treatment. The commissioners were scrupulous during the period that they were in office in maintaining their contacts with trade unions and in maintaining in force all the joint consultation machinery, all the Whitley agreements on rates of pay, appeals procedures, and so on. One reason why Mr. Hardy and other members of the former authority were asked to help the commissioners was to enable them to play a part in hearing the appeals—as members of appeals committees—of staff who felt that they had been unfairly treated. That was done strictly in accordance with the Whitley agreements.
Unless more cogent evidence can be produced, I can sec no case for accepting the amendments, and if they are put to the vote I shall advise my hon. Friends to resist them.

Mr. Moyle: I am afraid that the reply by the right hon. Gentleman is far from satisfactory. We take the point that he tried to do his best for Mr. Stan Hardy but that he did not succeed. That emphasises the point that Mr. Hardy was prejudiced by the illegal actions resulting from the instrument of 1 August 1979. Without those actions, in all probability he would have continued earning his salary until the present day. We take the point that the Secretary of State is willing to look after him, but if there is to be action to look after the generals there must also be action to look after the troops. For that reason, we wish to press the amendment to a Division.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The principle that, if one looks after the generals one must

look after the troops is correct. But no one is in a comparable position to Mr. Hardy, in the sense that he suddenly found himself without emoluments. Mr. Hardy was the only member of the authority who was paid, and when he was relieved of his functions, inevitably, under Treasury regulations, he had to be relieved of his emoluments. We understand now that it was illegally done, and that it raises a special position. I have undertaken in good faith to look into the matter.

Mr. Moyle: The comparability arises because Mr. Hardy lost money as a result of illegal actions, and I am sure that others lost money, too. The Secretary of State builds his case on the fact that the area health authority had undertaken reductions in staff. That may be true, but possibly not the reductions in staff that took place. Staff do not think in terms of reductions in staff. They think in terms of what happens to their jobs. A number of people have either lost their jobs or have had their jobs prejudiced, and their plans for the future have been upset and disturbed as a result of illegal actions taken by people who were illegally appointed.
Some play was made of the unique and privileged position in which employees of the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham area health authority will be placed if the amendment is accepted. I do not think that that is sustainable, because the amendments merely insist on a review of the posts and their emoluments by the area health authority without any conditions being attached to the ultimate outcome of the review. For those reasons, we wish to divide the Committee on amendment No. 8.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 89, Noes 127.

Division No. 221]
AYES
[7.17 pm


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dormand, Jack
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Freud, Clement


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dubs, Alfred
George, Bruce


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Graham, Ted


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Eadie, Alex
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Eastham, Ken
Grant, John (Islington C)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
English, Michael
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cryer, Bob
Evans, John (Newton)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Field, Frank
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Dalyell, Tam
Fitt, Gerard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Haynes, Frank


Dixon, Donald
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Hooley, Frank


Dobson, Frank
Foster, Derek
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)




John, Brynmor
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spriggs, Leslie


Lamond, James
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Stallard, A. W.


Leadbitter, Ted
O'Neill, Martin
Steel, Rt Hon David


Leighton, Ronald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Litherland, Robert
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Parry, Robert
Tilley, John


Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Pendry, Tom
Tinn, James


McCartney, Hugh
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McCusker, H.
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Welsh, Michael


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Rooker, J. W.
Winnick, David


McNally, Thomas
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



Maynard, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Soley, Clive
Mr. Terry Davis and


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Spearing, Nigel
Mr. George Morton.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Farr, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Arnold, Tom
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Murphy, Christopher


Aspinwall, Jack
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Needham, Richard


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Nelson, Anthony


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Neubert, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Newton, Tony


Banks, Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan
Onslow, Cranley


Bendall, Vivian
Goodhart, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Gorst, John
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Berry, Hon Anthony
Greenway, Harry
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Best, Keith
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Parris, Matthew


Bevan, David Gilroy
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Blackburn, John
Hawksley, Warren
Proctor, K. Harvey


Body, Richard
Heddle, John
Rhodes James, Robert


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Hooson, Tom
Rossi, Hugh


Bright, Graham
Hordern, Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Brinton, Tim
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Brotherton, Michael
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Speed, Keith


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Speller, Tony


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Kilfedder, James A.
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Buck, Antony
Lang, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stevens, Martin


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lawrence, Ivan
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lawson, Nigel
Stradling Thomas, J.


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thorne, Nell (Ilford South)


Chapman, Sydney
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Thornton, Malcolm


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Waddington, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lyell, Nicholas
Waldegrave, Hon William


Colvin, Michael
Macfarlane, Nell
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Cope, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Waller, Gary


Critchiey, Julian
Major, John
Ward, John


Crouch, David
Mates, Michael
Watson, John


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Mather, Carol
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wheeler, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wickenden, Keith


Dover, Denshore
Mellor, David
Wolfson, Mark


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Meyer, Sir Anthony



Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Eggar, Timothy
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Mr. John MacGregor and


Emery, Peter
Moate, Roger
Mr. John Wakeham.


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

Mr. Moyle: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for moving the Third Reading formally. There are a number of matters that I wish to raise with the

right hon. Gentleman arising from the fact that we spent a fairly short time in Committee and that a number of amendments were not selected for debate.
I turn first to the central issue that we have been discussing, namely, the period during which the overpayment of the area health authority should be adjusted and brought into line. This is an opportunity to put on record the correct overspend of the authority. Some exaggerated figures were quoted by a number of hon. Members from Kent on Tuesday afternoon. It is unfortunate that none of those hon. Members is present.


They kept talking about an overspend of about £9·5 million during those two years—an overspend that never took place. The AHA was certainly heading for an overspend of about £5·5 million in the financial year 1978–79. However, as a result of representations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), that total was not reached and the overspend for 1978–79 was £4·3 million.
By virtue of the agreement to repay that overspend by 1981–82, the AHA started with a clean sheet on 1 April 1979. It took decisions which would have reduced the expenditure in 1979–80 by £2 million. If that plan had been implemented, the overspend would have been about £3·5 million by now in this financial year.
Two points arise, First, increased VAT imposed further costs of £1 million on the AHA. That figure should have been related to the £3 million to £3·5 million projected overspend for this year. That therefore amounted to an on-cost on the margins of about 33 per cent., not 20 per cent., as I said in my Second Reading speech. That means that the overspend is nothing like £9·5 million; it is much nearer £4·3 million. Nevertheless the AHA—

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: To be fair to my hon Friends, they were adding the figures for the two years together.

Mr. Moyle: Even if the figures for two years are added together, the figure is still nowhere near £9·5 million. It is substantially less than that. No adjustment has been made in the cash limits to allow for the excessive increase in the rate of inflation during the last 12 months. Although we hear that the commissioners have brought the area finances into balance—subject to a small overspending—it means that when it takes over the AHA will face the consequences of having to repay £4·3 million of overspend by the end of the 1978–79 financial year against the background of increased inflation. The authority has a difficult task ahead.
The Under-Secretary chided us on Tuesday for not saying what we would have done had the Opposition been in power. We would have extended the period during which the adjustment

should take place, and that is what I now propose to the Secretary of State. I earnestly ask him to consider that proposal. I am not asking him to give a precise answer tonight, but I do ask him to give the proposal a sympathetic hearing.
Legal costs were incurred by the boroughs of Lewisham and Southwark as a result of the action of 1 August last year and it is beyond peradventure that they would not have gone to law if the commissioners had not been appointed. They went to law, and the result is the Bill that we are now discussing. Those boroughs were awarded costs against the Secretary of State, but they also brought two other cases. The first concerned the closure of St. Olave's hospital. That case was brought jointly by the Southwark and Lewisham borough councils. The second case concerned the closure of St. John's hospital, and that case was brought by Lewisham borough council alone.
Those cases were not as decisive as the one that gave rise to this Bill. Nevertheless, they resulted in judgments that were substantially sympathetic to the point of view of the plaintiffs, particularly in relation to the closure of St. John's hospital. In his judgment, Mr. Justice Griffiths said:
I think the decision to close the hospital and transfer the VD clinic and transfer the vast majority of abortions being performed elsewhere is a substantial variation in the provision of the services.
That judgment was important from the point of view of interpreting the principles that have hitherto been applied in organising consultations on hospital closures. It gave rise to a "Dear Regional Administrator" letter on 7 December last year, which gave advice to health authorities as to what they should regard as a "substantial variation" in view of the High Court judgment. That has made a considerable difference in consultation practices since 7 December as compared with the practices between 3 May and 7 December last year.
So the money spent on legal action was not spent irresponsibly. Something positive was achieved, but as a result the London borough of Lewisham incurred costs of £2,500 in respect of St. John's hospital, and the boroughs of Lewisham and Southwark incurred costs of £2,500


as a result of contesting the closure of St. Olave's. That money would not have been spent but for the act of 1 August last year. Those High Court actions achieved positive and beneficial results for the Health Service in the long term, and it would be nice to know that the Secretary of State would reimburse those boroughs.
If I may use the expression, we are being "legally robbed" as a result of the reduction in the rate support grant. In the case of Lewisham, that is a reduction of £1·3 million in the coming year. It would be unfortunate if—on top of that—there was further robbery, and I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the issue sympathetically.
The community health councils have also been involved in extra activity and expense as a result of the appointment of the commissioners. Shortly after the commissioners arrived on the scene and the AHA disappeared, local people set up a co-ordinating committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) to ensure that the activities of the commissioners were monitored and that there might be a democratic channel through which representation could be made from patients and potential patients and the general public to the commissioners.
The secretary of the Lewisham community health council was appointed secretary of that co-ordinating committee, and she and her assistant secretaries put in a great deal of extra time and work. It would be nice to know whether the community health councils can claim the extra expenses that they incurred.
Looking further into the future, we should be grateful if the Secretary of State would instruct the commissioners to give all the information reasonably required by the AHA so that it can take up its duties again after 1 April. There seems to be some dubiety about whether that will happen, and there may be a lack of precision about the arrangements. Obviously the AHA will need the fullest information if it is to discharge its responsibilities after 1 April 1980. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to reassure us on that.
There is a further knotty and technical problem, which should have been covered by amendment No. 1, which was not

selected. However, I gather that we can raise the matter on Third Reading. That being so, we would like the Secretary of State to confirm that there is no way in which the validated instrument of 1 August 1979 can be extended beyond 31 March this year. I ask that because the Secretary of State has not actually said that the area health authority will return to office on 1 April 1980. Even if he did, we must remember that there is still more than two weeks between now and then. The Secretary of State is an honourable man. He has said enough to make everybody assume that the area health authority will resume office on 1 April. He would be in some personal difficulty if it did not do so. However, he has not said that.
The right hon. Gentleman is fallible. As he goes home tonight, he might be run over or have a heart attack and be dead by this time tomorrow and one of his right hon. Friends might take over. That is not such an unusual event. That is almost exactly what happened to Mr. Brian O'Malley, a Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security. Whoever took over might say that as a result of the Bill he had a valid direction and keep the commissioners in power beyond that dale. I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm that there is no possibility of that.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I wish to raise a question of principle. The Bill involves a constitutional issue which should not pass without remark. I did not take part in the debate on Second Reading or in the Committee because that seemed to be the task of hon. Members whose constituents were directly affected by the Secretary of State's decision. However, the issue is not only local, because the Secretary of State's action could have applied anywhere.
I want to ask about the Minister's accountability to the House and about the relationship of the Secretary of State to the civil servants who advised him about the decision which resulted in the necessity for the indemnity Bill. Over the years there has been a diminution of ministerial accountability and an enhancement of the power of civil servants. To some degree that is reflected in the Bill.
In July 1954 a not entirely dissimilar but not entirely parallel case occurred, involving the Minister of Agriculture and


Fisheries, Sir Thomas Dugdale. The junior Minister at that time was the present Foreign Secretary. The question of ministerial accountability was posed at that time. Since then the Vehicle and General report concluded that a minor civil servant was to blame for what happened in that case. The report said that two or three Ministers had been advised by civil servants about the difficulties of that company but had taken no action. I am anxious that there shall be no shift away from ministerial accountability to the House.
What advice did the Secretary of State receive which enabled him to act as he did? He ignored other legislative powers. As a result of his decision, the Bill was introduced. Why did the Secretary of State use his emergency powers without time limit? It is extraordinary, with the wealth of advice available to the Secretary of State, often from those involved in the drafting of Bills, that the fullest information was not provided.
An indemnity Bill has been necessary before, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said. However, that was introduced during wartime under a coalition Government and when the circumstances were different. There was a general emergency and the degree of accountability was of a different nature. The responsibility of the Government then was to organise the nation to fight Fascism and the invaders at our doorstep. The position is different today. In July 1954 the then Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, when faced with a decision which he himself had not taken but for which he accepted full responsibility because he was not given proper advice, made a statement to the House. He referred to advice that he had received. He said that it was his decision finally. Sir Thomas Dugdale said:
First, I should like to say a word about the conduct of the civil servants concerned. General issues of great constitutional importance arise in this regard … I am quite clear that it would be deplorable if there were to be any departure from the recognised constitutional position. I, as Minister, must accept full responsibility to Parliament for any mistakes and inefficiency of officials in my Department, just as, when my officials bring off any successes on my behalf, I take full credit for them.

That is true. We could not stop a Minister from teling us about a success and trumpeting it abroad in the loudest tones so that editorials the following day give credit to the Minister for the wonderful decisions that he has taken. Now, the reverse is true. The Bill is before us as a result of a Minister's decision. Much of the anguish and concern for detailed issues which my hon. Friends have raised is about the period of illegal activity by those appointed by the Minister. The Minister takes full responsibility.
What has happened to the civil servants who advised the Secretary of State? We recognise that the Minister may have to make a fine judgment which may be mistaken. Nobody can be perfect. We do not expect a Minister to be 100 per cent. right. A Government would not last a day if that were so, because Ministers are always making political judgments which are unsound and mistaken. We are talking about a decision based on legal advice and on legislation. Clearly, a serious mistake was made which necessitated the Bill. What has happened to the civil servants who advised the Minister? He took the final decision.
There was a public inquiry into the Crichel Down affair but the circumstances were different. There were suggestions of corrupt dealings. That does not apply in this case. Many people are worried because a Minister, acting on the advice of senior civil servants, made a decision which was shown to be wholly wrong, has cost money, cost the House time and caused hundreds of people much anxiety.
It would be useful if the Secretary of State laid a report in the Library about the action that he has taken in regard to the civil servants. What investigations has he held? There should be an investigation into the advice that resulted in a decision which was so clearly wrong from the beginning. It is not a fine judgment. There is ample evidence that the advice given was very much mistaken and could not easily be justified.
In the Crichel Down case Sir Thomas Dugdale said:
I now turn to the question of disciplinary action. The conduct of the civil servants concerned has been the subject of a public inquiry and of a report and, as a result, they have received public censure and reprimand. This in itself is a most severe punishment.


I wonder whether the civil servants involved in this case received a private reprimand. That would be some sort of punishment. In the Dugdale case, the five civil servants concerned were moved from their positions.

Mr. English: To where were they moved?

Mr. Cryer: I have no idea. It may be that they were moved to better positions. That would not have been of benefit to anybody.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West points to a matter of concern, namely, the aura of secrecy that surrounds those in powerful positions. At the moment, they have come unstuck. I imagine that the Secretary for State has not been too happy about the matter and that his displeasure has made itself felt throughout his Department. However, he took the decision and, at the end of the day, it is his responsibility. Every Secretary of State receives advice from senior civil servants. Every Secretary of State must be accountable to the House for his decisions.
I should like an explanation of what happened behind the aura of secrecy that surrounds the operations of senior civil servants. Although the Secretary of State is accountable to the House, we wish to know whether there have been repercussions in his Department. The civil servants gave bad advice, upon which the Secretary of State mistakenly acted. It is not simply a case of shrugging off the results so that one or two years later the matter will be forgotten and the power to influence and mould decisions will still lie with those civil servants.
Although the Secretary of State took the decision, he did not follow the highly dramatic action of Sir Thomas Dugdale, who concluded his speech by saying:
Having now had this opportunity of rendering account to Parliament of the actions which I thought fit to take, I have, as the Minister responsible during this period, tendered my resignation to the Prime Minister, who is submitting it to the Queen."—[Official Report, 20 July 1954; Vol. 530, c. 1185–94.]
He thought that his actions were so grave and so mistaken that he could no longer hold office. In fact, he was not directly responsible for those actions. In a quaint and old-fashioned phrase, it was an honourable action for Sir Thomas Dug-dale to take.
I wish to be sure that this position will not be repeated when reasonably clear legislation is in force, that suitable reprimands have been meted out to those who gave bad advice, and that the Secretary of State understands that he cannot do this sort of thing too often. The precedent set by Sir Thomas Dugdale is remembered as a constitutional one of great importance. The Secretary of State may face pressure of such great momentum that he will create a second precedent in similar circumstances.

Mr. Martin Stevens: I had not intended to intrude in the debate today, having spoken on Second Reading. I listened with dismay to the approach adopted by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), as it differs acutely from the generous and civilised approach of the Opposition Front Bench. Both the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) and the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin)—who took us through the legal aspects at some length—made it clear that they would support the Bill because there was no question of any wrong-doing by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Nor was there any question, as in the case cited by the hon. Member for Keighley, of a prolonged and disgraceful national scandal, for which the Department was collectively responsible.
In this case, the right steps were taken to cope with an emergency which later proved—we all accept the learned judge's findings—to have been based on a technical misapprehension. The actions themselves were in the public interest. No consequences resulted which were contrary to the public interest. It would be absurd to compare them with the long saga of injustices that culminated in the resignation of Sir Thomas Dugdale—which was a courageous and honourable response on his part to events for which he was not responsible. The hon. Gentleman attempted draw a comparison. He was mean to do so, because there is no comparison.
To seek to put my right hon. Friend in a position where he can, even fleetingly, be suspected or accused of lacking in the standards of honour and integrity shown by Sir Thomas Dugdale is grossly unfair and manifestly untrue. While my right


hon. Friend can defend himself perfectly well without my help, I must say that it is extremely distasteful to me that he should be called upon to defend himself in the House on a charge affecting his personal honour, unless there are very grave and serious reasons for being required so to do.
We are debating a technicality. In the Dugdale case the debate was about a serious issue of substance in which, for a prolonged period, the country had recognised that a whole Department had acted in a high-handed and unjustified manner. That does not apply in this case, and the learned judge's remarks show that he recognised that fact.
I suspect that there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who will share my regret that the hon. Member for Keighley should have seen fit to try to impugn my right hon. Friend's honour, when those on his Front Bench were so generously careful to do no such thing.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) chose to intervene in the debate, because it has provoked me to proceed along a road to justify the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). I do not think that my hon. Friend was attacking the Secretary of State. He said that if the Secretary of State had accepted advice from his Department, he wished to know who gave him that advice and what action had been taken to put the matter right. As I understand it, my hon. Friend suggested that the DHSS works in mysterious ways. There are eminent civil servants in the DHSS who seem to be able to give bad advice to Ministers, without repercussions. My hon. Friend wanted to know what had happened. I have some sympathy with him on that matter.
Although the hon. Member for Fulham did not mention my name, I hope that I, too, was generous to the Secretary of State in saying that I did not press for his resignation.

Mr. Stevens: I am sorry that I did not mention the hon. Gentleman's name or, more properly, his constituency. I know that he was generous. The matter to which he should address himself is not that of the civil servants involved but

whether the hon. Member for Keighley was right to suggest that there was a similarity between this case and that of Sir Thomas Dugdale. I suggest that there is no such similarity.

Mr. Brown: I am addressing myself to the issue. The mistake having been made, I do not think that the Minister can come to the House and merely say "I am sorry. Everything has gone wrong. I shall put it right by introducing a Bill of this magnitude." It cannot be argued that the Bill is minuscule and that it represents the minutia of legislation. It is a serious matter.
My hon. Friend made a comparison between the end of the two episodes and referred to what happened when it came to the attention of the Minister that things had gone wrong in the Department. He applied what Sir Thomas Dugdale did to the present situation and pointed out how Sir Thomas had identified and dealt with people in his Department.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) obviously does not hear very well, because at the end of my brief remarks I said several times that the Minister could not afford to do this and that if he did—I am sure that there will be common ground on this—he would find himself in the same situation as Sir Thomas Dugdale. One of my basic questions was what the Minister had done to prevent any such repetition, either through the further scrutiny of advice or by obtaining of better advice.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However, perhaps I can leave that aspect of the matter and turn to other items.
The DHSS is a mysterious body, which works in mysterious ways. The issue that we are debating merely encapsulates the problem. For example, on Second Reading many hon. Members referred to RAWP. That came about only because people within the Department decided that it should be introduced. Essentially, it was dreamt up within the DHSS, and foisted on to the rest of us, because the Secretary of State at the time was persuaded to buy the argument. In a way, it was suitable to him because it meant that one was taking money from Peter to pay Paul. During a time of monetary constraint, no doubt the Secretary of State felt that that was a useful thing to do.
However, RAWP was never really discussed publicly. It was never discussed in this House. It has never been an issue. Yet it has been implemented. Therefore, I believe that my hon. Friend was right to ask about the DHSS. If people in the Department have that sort of power, will they be dealt with when they make an error of this magnitude?
The RHAs and AHAs are to some extent facades. They have an appearance of independence, but they do not have much influence. The DHSS lays down pretty clearly what one's expenditure is and how one can expend it. Therefore, having been virtually constrained in a straitjacket, there is little that one can do. If one serves on an RHA, one can only distribute the available money to the AHAs in some order of priority on which one can adjudicate. When the AHA receives its money, it can only do the best that it can. There is no form of appeal, and there is no one to whom it can go. Therefore, in this case, when the AHA discovered that more and more pressure was being brought to bear in a way that it felt was incompatible with the needs of the area, it tried to challenge the pressure that was being put upon it. It tried to draw attention to the fact that lives were at stake. It felt that what it was being urged to do was incompatible with the principles enshrined in its work.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It seems to me that, faced with the situation which the hon. Gentleman has described, members of an AHA have two options. They can do what they did in Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham and seek to defy the cash limit which the Secretary of State laid down, or they can do what the councillors did in the Ealing, Hounslow and Hammersmith health authority and resign. Which does the hon. Gentleman think is the more honourable course?

Mr. Brown: That is true, but the Secretary of State should not take me back to the resignation argument. I took myself away from that so that I would not say things that I would regret in the morning, and I beg him not to take me back to that argument.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I serve on the RHA that is responsible for Ealing, Hounslow and Hammersmith AHA. I faced a grave problem about

what I should do. Only recently I voted against the closure of a particular hospital, which was recommended by an AHA, because I thought that that closure was wrong, but I was outvoted. On the first occasion I won and had the matter deferred, but at the next meeting I was defeated by two votes. Therefore, the hospital is to be closed.
I suffered a crisis of conscience, basically because I believed that the information that I was given was incorrect. I do not believe that all the details were made available. Indeed, I asked for further details but did not get them. I am still trying to get those details. However, the DHSS is a mysterious place, and it is difficult to obtain information. It is even more difficult when one is trying to seek information about other areas that are outside one's region. If one wants to increase the burden—that is, to add money rather than to take it away—no other region wants to discuss it. Consequently, the basis upon which one makes a decision leaves much to be desired.

Mr. Christopher Price: In the interests of accuracy, and as the Secretary of State has again used the phrase "intending to defy cash limits", is my hon. Friend aware that the resolution that was passed on 30 July, if read by a reasonable man, could not possibly have that meaning? The only person who read that meaning into it was the Secretary of State, and in doing so he was found to have acted illegally.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. However, I should like to return to the matter that was raised by the Secretary of State, because it is constantly raised.
Many of my friends who serve on these bodies are, as a result of this case, wondering what they should do. My own personal view is that the Health Service would be better if all these public-spirited people were to continue in post and attempt to do the best that they can for their areas. It would be wrong if the NHS became just a part of the Conservative Party. That would be wrong in principle, and it would be bad for the people who are being served. However, people are now seriously questioning whether there is any purpose in ordinary folk serving on RHAs and AHAs if they are to be subjected to a political approach from the


DHSS which will not allow them any judgment or the use of their skills.
The Secretary of State has heard me argue the case with regard to temporary closures, about which he knows that I am in total disagreement. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I object to places being closed down when they will never be reopened, at least not in the foreseeable future. On Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman averred most strongly that I was wrong and that temporary closures would be reopened. I asked for the date of the reopening of St. Leonard's hospital. I ask him again. As he insists that temporary closures are temporary, can he tell me the day on which I can expect St. Leonard's hospital to be reopened?
I warn the right hon. Gentleman that that district will be overspent by another £1 million by the end of the year. Another hospital will have to be closed. The candidate is St. Matthew's hospital. That will save about £1½ million. The right hon. Gentleman should ask his officials to investigate that. If St. Leonard's has been temporarily closed, I want to know when it will be opened. If money is saved by closing a hospital, it is obvious that reopening it will mean that an authority will be overspent the following year. It is therefore nonsense to say that hospitals that have been closed will be reopened.
Mr. Hardy and his colleagues have been misguided. They will be left in a worse position. Before they were sacked in August, they had developed a general argument. They desperately tried to keep within their cash limits. However, they found it extremely difficult, although they did the best that they could. Having been out of office for some time, they will find it difficult to handle their charge when they return.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: With great respect, they had the officers' proposal before them. That proposal had been adopted by the members' planning group. It set out proposals that would have achieved the savings demanded by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals). Having passed the original resolution—to which the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) has referred—the health authority proceeded to vote down the first three proposals suggesting savings. How anyone

can say that it intended to remain within the cash limits is beyond my understanding. It specifically voted down the proposals that would have achieved that. No suggestion was made to put anything else in their place. That is the point at which the Government had to act.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman made the same point on Second Reading. How much does one accept that the officers' advice at that stage represented the law of the Medes and the Persians? The Secretary of State has highlighted something that will be a powerful influence on me. In the past I have sought the reports of officers and of working parties. I use them to enable me to come to a decision. I had always thought that those reports were privy to me. They represent the tools of my work. I need to make judgments on sound information and on fact. However, those officers' reports have been used by the Secretary of State as a weapon against those for whom they were intended. We should therefore review the way in which they are evaluated.
In all occupations, reports are the working tools of those who have to take decisions. They should not be used subsequently as proof that one did not take certain advice. When a bad judgment has been made that is proved to be illegal, action may then be taken against those concerned. The members did not act in an ultra vires fashion. They attempted to do the best that they could. On the advice of his Department, the Secretary of State took action. He wanted to make an example of someone on the basis that if the Department had not taken issue other health authorities might have exceeded their cash limits.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am sorry to intervene again, but votes were taken. Some of those on that area health authority voted to do the things. Others voted not to. They were in the majority. I do not understand how it can then be said that the authority had tried to comply with the cash limits. The majority of members of that authority specifically refused to take the necessary decisions. That is why I sought to suspend them.

Mr. Christopher Price: It is important to get the facts, not the myth, on record. On 30 July the majority voted to defer taking decisions on three items of cuts.


It was decided to defer any decision, before gaining further information. It was not a vote not to make the cuts. That should be put on the record.

Mr. Brown: I agree with that. That is why I have raised the issue of officers' reports. Those reports are relevant only to those who discuss them at the time. I receive the reports of the regional team of officers and the reports of the area teams. I have never met them. I look at the reports and make inquiries about the issues that I have not understood. I sideline those passages where I require information.
The area health authority considered the report. It was not persuaded that three of its recommendations provided the immediate answer. A decision was therefore deferred. The Secretary of State may say that statements were made by various people. The Secretary of State for the Environment now says that he will legislate on the speeches that people make. That is a silly attitude. The right hon. Gentleman has never done such a thing. I beg him not to go down that path. I beg him also not to take action because of headlines in a newspaper or as the result of allegations made about meetings.

Mr. English: I realise that my hon. Friend wishes to set the record straight. However, the judge said that there was one reason for issuing a section 17 direction to which we shall now never know the answer. If the right hon. Gentleman had ordered the health authority to conform to the cash limits and not merely asked it to comply with them, the judge felt that the majority of members of that authority would not have wished to break the law. He felt that a sufficient number might have voted a different way. I sympathise, because in many cases I would resist a proposal from the right hon. Gentleman. However, if that resistance involved breaking the law, I would not.

Mr. Brown: I wish to point out to the Secretary of State that his Department has a tendency to wander away from issues. It leads the right hon. Gentleman astray. He has been led astray on this issue. I beg him to ensure that the Department is not allowed to do that. This is a difficult problem. He is lucky, be-

cause he has not had to serve on regional or area health authorities. It is one thing to sit in Alexander Fleming House issuing edicts; it is another if one is on the ground, responsible for trying to get a quart into a pint pot. That is impossible.
It is not sensible to take action against people merely because they have failed to do what the Secretary of State wished them to do. I shall not vote against the Third Reading. However, I am sad that the Secretary of State has found himself in this position. Several issues have been highlighted that will have far-reaching effects. Those serving on regional health authorities and area health authorities will ask a question again and again. If the Secretary of State is suggesting that those who do not conform to his view should resign, we must consider that at a later date.
It was a sad day when the right hon. Gentleman's Department misled him. It is sad that he has had to bring forward the Bill. I only hope that the AHA, when it takes over control in April, will be allowed to try to carry out its work in the best way that it can and not be guided too heavily by the Department.

Mr. English: I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), who is a London Member and, understandably, wishes to get all the details straight.
The right hon. Gentleman has been given a good going over on Tuesday and today. I am prepared to leave it at that.
I have two brief points to make. I see the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) lurking on the edges of the Chamber but outside the House. When the hon. Gentleman reads his speech, he may regret describing a breach of law as a technicality. I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman is now in his place. Breaches of the law are not technicalities, whoever commits them, and should not be so described. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman may consider that he could have used a better word.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) said that the former Sir Thomas Dugdale was regarded as an honourable man. He still is. As Lord


Crathorne, I believe that he was chairman of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee.

Mr. Cryer: I did not know that when I praised him.

Mr. English: I am working from memory.
It behoves the right hon. Gentleman when he talks about Hounslow, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, to forget the talk of resignation. I am more concerned with the remainder of my hon. Friend's speech. I had an amendment down which was not selected—and I do not complain about that—to secure that the Select Committee on social services should have a report from the right hon. Gentleman stating what advice he received, from whom he received it and what he has done to reward those who gave him correct advice and to discipline those who gave him incorrect advice.
It is right and proper that the right hon. Gentleman should accept responsibility for the mess, but that is not the same as concealing the virtues or defects of everyone in the Government machine. It is a matter of great importance to the country.
This country is not the most efficient in the world, and we must attribute that partly to our system of government, which includes Parliament—and many of us are trying to reform our parliamentary procedures to make them more efficient. Over the past 100 years, we have lost an empire and we are no longer the country with the highest standard of living in the world. Those negative achievements are attributable partly to the way that we run our country. However, we have other virtues.
One of our drawbacks is concealment and lack of desire to praise or blame individuals. It shows a certain delicacy of feeling, but is it the way to run a country? I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman reflects on that.
We have too much automaticity in government. Generally speaking, those who are classified on entering the Civil Service as As, Bs and Cs end up in about that order when they retire. Permanent secretaries have generally been classified as As 40 years previously. They

attain their position substantially on the basis of what the original interviewers thought of them. It is not necessarily true that they attained those positions wholly because of the good or bad experience that people have had of them.
At this time of night people are gathering for other events, and I shall not go into the matter, but one of the causes is the concealment of good or bad advice. I do not wish that people's names and advice should be revealed only when that advice is bad. That would totally endanger the whole machine. The good should be positively rewarded and the bad negatively. That is done in the United States, where there are long salary scales, which, if necessary, take one—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): That may be so in the United States, but it does not relate to the Bill.

Mr. English: I am aware of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we have wasted two days of parliamentary time to indemnify a Secretary of State and all his servants. All persons acting under him are indemnified by the Bill, and not merely the Secretary of State. The judgment on which the Bill is founded specifically says in the second sub-paragraph of the conclusions that the advice that the Secretary of State received was misguided. I am speaking to that point. We know what the learned judge said about the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State has carried the can for long enough in these debates.
The learned judge also referred to an anonymous group of people, whose names have not so far appeared. We do not know whether they are lawyers, administrators or what. I do not wish such anonymity to be broken only when people make mistakes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be speaking to the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. English: I am simply saying that I am reluctant to agree to the Third Reading of a Bill that indemnifies anonymous people. Surely that is in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no wish to vote against the Bill. I was hoping to express my view and not vote. If you press me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must say that I object most strongly not to


indemnifying the Secretary of State, who has honourably come here and defended himself, but to indemnifying people who are not named.
In the interests of the country as a whole, there is a strong case for seeing that people give good advice, which is not the case here. Some people may have done so, but we do not know that. There may be someone sitting in the Department with a halo saying "I told you so" to all his colleagues, but we have not been told.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say, if that is so, that there were civil servants who gave him what has turned out to be the correct advice. He might at least praise them before we give the Bill a Third Reading. Otherwise, the anonymity indemnifies people who may have given the right advice. We should not pass over these people.
In 10 or 20 years' time, a person who gave bad advice to the right hon. Gentleman may be a permanent secretary in another Department. We shall not know for another 30 years, when he will have retired and we shall probably all have retired.
There is a constitutional doctrine that Ministers are responsible to this House not only for their actions but for those of their Departments. That is right. But there is nothing in this constitutional doctrine that says that when they are responsible they are obliged to keep secret the names of those who gave them advice and the nature of it. There is nothing in the doctrine of ministerial responsibility that says that. It has been extended by many. It is being extended by the right hon. Gentleman to include that. But that is not what the doctrine of ministerial responsibility is about. It is really concerned with who answers for the Department to this House.
When the relevant person answers—the right hon. Gentleman, in this case—he might also tell the House who answers to him and whether those who answer to him are good or bad. The principle could be generalised through all Departments of State. One of the best ways is the American system under which people get more money if their superiors regard them as good and less money if their superiors regard them as bad. There is also the French system under which people get

more money—the so-called primes—if their superiors regard them as good.
None of this happens in this country. People get paid whether they give good advice or bad advice. They get a knighthood on reaching a certain rank and retire at 60 whether they have given good or bad advice. It is one of the weaknesses of our system of government. This is a clear case where the weakness has shown up.

Mr. Christopher Price: I do not intend to detain the House for long. Other things appear to be happening. It is proper to make some comment before the Bill passes from this House to the other place, which is not quite the toothless tiger that some hon. Members had thought. The other place might wish to say something about ministerial responsibility as well as school transport. I feel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if I were to pursue that matter you would pull me up. I shall not, therefore, pursue it.
The Bill exhibits every aspect of double standards that adhere to the present Government and to the Conservative Party. One thinks back to the howling mobs over Clay Cross, compared with the gentle way in which the law-abiding Opposition have treated the law-breaking Secretary of State in this instance. One sees how the defence Estimates are allowed to blow right through cash limits without any chance for the House of Commons properly to control them, but when it appears that those in charge of the health Estimates might allow one small part to go through cash limits the Government show their contempt for democracy by choosing that area of the National Health Service Act that enables them to destroy every democratic element in the control of the Health Service and appoint commissioners more in common with a Fascist regime than with a Govern. ment like this—

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Five commissioners took on voluntarily—[Interruption]. Of course, they received fees. I understand that. But they took on a task of public duty at my request. For the hon. Gentleman to use language like that about them is unlike him and uncharacteristic. I think that the House would wish him to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Price: If the right hon. Gentleman feels that he can read into the remarks that I have made—I do not think that he will be able to do so—any suggestion that Sir Frank Hartley or any of his four fellow commissioners exhibited Fascist tendencies, I withdraw immediately any such suggestion. I maintain my point of view. Where legislation enables Ministers to destroy those democratic elements in our constitution—local government representatives on area health authorities or community health councils—and replace them by commissioners, I repeat that such provisions in law have more in common with Fascist regimes than with the democracy in which we claim to believe in this country.
Everything that the Government have done, particularly the present actions of the Secretary of State for the Environment, threaten the passing of legislation through the House that will erode local democracy, which has been a pillar of the British way of life for hundreds of years. Everything that the Government are doing makes me feel that my remarks are a proper warning to give to the House. They are a proper characterisation of the use of section 86 of the National Health Service Act.
I reiterate that that clause of the Bill went through the House in 1973 with not one word of discussion in Committee, on Report or in the Second Reading and Third Reading debates. That happened because everyone in the House assumed that the word "emergency" had nothing whatever to do with the dispute between the Secretary of State and the AHA about cash limits. It was thought that it simply referred to an act of God or, perhaps, grave civil disturbance.
The Secretary of State used in a way that was never intended part of the Bill that went through the House undiscussed. It was left to the High Court of Justice to make a decision and not the High Court of Parliament. I wish that Parliament had had the power to call the Secretary of State to account, but it did not. It was left to the High Court of Justice and the democratically elected bodies of Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham to take appropriate action. I am proud that Lewisham took the lead. It was left to those boroughs to call the Secretary of State to account by submit-

ting his decision to judicial review. That should be put on record.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the fact that we now have a Select Committee that has the facility and, I hope, the urgency to call the Secretary of State before it and also to call for the papers from the Department. That Committee can pursue this matter to discover the true story.

Mr. Price: An amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) that, quite properly, could not be discussed because it had not been selected, for one reason or another. I hope that the Social Services Select Committee will attempt to call the Secretary of State to account and make him produce the papers on which his decision was based. There is a great deal to be said for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West on this matter.
There is no point whatever in having Select Committees or, indeed, this Chamber—which is supposed to be able to call Ministers to account—if we cannot discover the basis upon which Ministers take decisions. The latest set of ground rules laid down by the Civil Service Department and the previous Prime Minister—broadly termed the Croham directive—is a wholly inadequate basis for enabling Select Committees or hon. Members to scrutinise the actions of Ministers.
I pass on now to a more "meaty" Third Reading point. I understand that my own Front Bench has indicated that it has no intention of voting against the Third Reading of the Bill. However, such pledges do not bind Back Benchers. I shall feel disposed to call a vote against Third Reading unless a number of questions are answered.
First, the London borough of Lewisham has expended money on a court case. I shall not be satisfied that the Bill should be given a Third Reading unless the Secretary of State gives us an assurance that no action will be taken against Lewisham by the Secretary of State for the Environment because it is spending too much money. Some of this money has been spent on litigation that resulted directly from the illegal actions of the Secretary


of State. It would be a scandal if Lewisham were one of the local authorities singled out for penal action by the Government at a time when some of its expenditure had resulted directly from the Secretary of State's illegal action. I want a definite indication on that issue.
We have had a lot of discussion about litigation, and I suppose that this will not arise. If the new area health authority should be involved in substantial litigation for action taken by the commissioners, will the Secretary of State at least indicate in his winding-up speech that he will look favourably at reimbursing the authority? I agree that we have rejected the idea of any amendments in this area, but if we are to allow the Third Reading to go through on the nod—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is not going through on the nod. That means without a debate.

Mr. Price: I bow to the right hon. Gentleman's greater linguistic knowledge of the workings of the Chamber. If we are to allow the Third Reading to go through without a Division we want some assurances that if the new area health authority gets into that sort of financial difficulty, consequent upon the actions of the commissioners, it will not have to find more money out of its funds for the aftermath and vestiges of this mess that the Secretary of State has created. That money should be devoted to patient care.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I shall try to reply briefly to all the questions raised in the debate. However, some of the speeches that have been made could have provoked me into giving rather longer and more substantial replies.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle), in opening the debate after I had moved the Third Reading formally, asked some specific questions of which he was kind enough to give me notice. He asked me whether I would consider sympathetically an extension to the 1980–81 and 1981–82 period during which the area health authority will be allowed to adjust. No doubt he has in mind the fact that the region will require the area to repay the money that the region lent it in order to cover the overspending in earlier years. I shall seek to make recovery in 1980–81 of the part of

that debt that is as reasonable as the circumstances justify. I shall review the position at the end of that financial year and then see how the recovery of the balance should be made in the light of the circumstances then prevailing.
The right hon. Member also asked, as did the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), how the Lewisham and Southwark borough councils should be compensated for legal costs. That would also extend to community health councils. As soon as I saw the amendment that was not called, I looked at this matter very carefully. I view this with a good deal of sympathy in view of the circumstances in which those cases were heard and the fact that in neither case was an order for costs enforced, although in one case it was made.
I assume that the court recognised that in neither case was it proper for costs to follow the event, or for the unsuccessful applicants to pay the commissioners' costs. It was right to consider this matter sympathetically. I had to take account of the precedents to which it might give rise, as other people might object. In both cases it would have been open to the applicants to take the point that the direction was invalid. That point was finally decided by Mr. Justice Woolf in the proceedings that formed the origin of the Bill. In neither of those cases was it thought proper to take the point. Therefore, I had to bear in mind that point on the other side.
Having considered the matter, it seems to me that the circumstances produced by the judgment on the validity of the instrument dated 1 August—the case that gave rise to the Bill—were so unusual that it would be right to make ex gratia payments to cover the costs incurred by the applicants in proceedings in respect of the closure of the two hospitals. I hope that that precedent will not have a significant effect on other areas of Government responsibility.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I would instruct the commissioners to give all the information reasonably required by the area to carry out its job after 31 March. I have already done so. Indeed, one of the matters that I discussed with the area on 29 February was the arrangements that should exist to enable the information to be made


available. A little difficulty was caused. Mr. Stan Hardy departed immediately for a long-planned, nostalgic trip to India. His absence made the task a little more difficult than it would have been. I want to ensure that anything reasonable that can be done should be done.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether there was any way in which the validated directive of 1 August 1979 could possibly be extended beyond 31 March 1980 so as to preclude the reinstatement of the area health authority. The answer is that I hereby give a categorical undertaking that, subject to any totally unforeseen circumstances—I mean genuinely unforeseen—it is my intention that the area health authority should resume control of the authority's affairs on 1 April. The date in the Bill will be the date when the period runs out.
I must advert briefly to one other point. I refer to the culpability—if that is the correct word—of those who advised me. That point was raised by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and was picked up by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). The issue on which this case turned, in the last resort, was what lawyers would call the ratio decidendi—whether a directive that did not specify a time limit could be valid—as section 86 of the National Health Service Act 1977 contained the words:
to direct that during the period specified by the directions a function conferred on any body.
On the questions whether there was an emergency, whether I could reasonably invoke that clause in these circumstances and whether I acted in good faith, the court held in my favour. On the question whether I acted reasonably, the court held that I could not be held to have acted unreasonably.

Mr. English: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I know the point that the hon. Gentleman intends to make. In the last resort, it is a question of obiter dictum whether section 17 would have been an alternative. The real question turned on whether I should have had to specify the time limit. I think that this is worth putting on the record.

Mr. English: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I shall not give way, as we are anxious to get on.
It is worth putting on record the point to which the judge adverted shortly before he reached his conclusion on this aspect of the case. I am quoting from page 26 of the judgment:
On this aspect of the case"—
and the aspect is the question whether there needed to be specified a time limit for the operation of this direction—
I should record that at one stage Mr. BlomCooper"—
counsel for the applicants—
conceded that he was not relying on the failure to specify, as it was not a mandatory requirement.
The point that I am making—I think this has to be borne in mind by those, of whom there have been many on both sides of the House, who have criticised those who gave me legal advice—is that on the very issue on which the judge came down against me in this case and in favour of the applicants, the applicants own counsel abandoned the argument halfway through. So doubtful was the question whether this made it mandatory to specify a time limit that the applicants' own counsel at one point decided not to base his case on that.
If I may say so, some of the extravagant language that has been used during the course of this Third Reading debate and earlier in the proceedings attacking those who give me advice might have taken account of the fact that this is a very narrow legal technicality, but the consequences are immensely serious and I have accepted full accountability to the House for them. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. He could have tabled a censure motion and he could have required my resignation. The House is not powerless in these matters, but nobody has chosen to do that.
On the narrow legal technical point, the applicants' own counsel abandoned the point half-way through the case, and presumably, when he realised that he was losing all the other points on which he had based his case, he came back to this, and in the end the judge held in his favour on that one narrow point. I hope that those who criticise people who advise Ministers and base their criticism on this case will recognise just how narrow and marginal was the issue. We had to decide this in a very short time, faced with a


challenge—and it was a challenge—by the majority of the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham area health authority.
The question is, what is the duty of members of an authority who find themselves faced with a choice of unpalatable decisions? There may be times when individual members face a situation in which their allegiance to the interest that they represent appears to conflict with their duties and the corporate accountability which they have as members of the authority. I think that we all recognise the dilemma that members face in these circumstances. However, in the last analysis, the collective responsibility of the authority must be overriding, and if individual members find it impossible to reconcile a conflict of interest the remedy is in their own hands—to resign their appointment. In the case of the Hounslow authority, that is what Councillor King and his colleagues decided to do, perfectly honourably. What is not tolerable is that they should continue in office and seek to spend money that they have not got. That was the situation in which I had to act.
I apologise to the House for not making it effective, for the narrow technical reasons that I have just outlined. I remain of the belief that I was wholly justified in seeking to take the action I did, but the Bill is the result of the legal error that we made and I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short Business Statement.
Following discussions through the usual channels, the business for Monday 17 March will now be a debate on the Olympic Games, which will arise on a Government motion. The fourteenth Supply day will be postponed.
I think that this is a very satisfacory outcome and I hope that it will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Denis Howell: May I first express our appeciation to the Leader of the House for meeting the wishes of the Opposition and, indeed, of the whole House that that debate should be held at a more sensible hour? It is satisfactory to the House and, I believe, to the sporting organisations outside that the considerations of which the House may wish to take account will now be debated at a more sensible and civilised hour. I wish to express our appreciation to the Leader of the House for responding to our representations in this way.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generous words. I am also grateful to the Opposition for offering to move the Supply day.

Mr. Terence Higgins: May I express appreciation, which will be felt on both sides of the House, of the decision made by the Leader of the House, which indicates the importance that the House as a whole attaches to this matter? The Leader of the House promised earlier that the motion would be tabled today. It had not been tabled a few moments ago. Will he confirm that it will be tabled without further delay?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I understand that it has been tabled. It reads as follows:
That this House condemns the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and believes that Britain should not take part in the Olympic Games in Moscow.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I welcome the content of the Business Statement. Does the Leader of the House agree that he has improperly tacked on to the debate for Thursday of next week about agricultural price proposals the basic document 2845/80 on Community financing and budgetary matters?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I hardly think that that arises from this Business Statement.

Mr. Hughes: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there is a great difference. A business statement is on the business of the House, and I submit to you with great deference that the Leader of the House is answerable on a matter of the business of the House. If he changes Monday's business, we may reasonably request information about Tuesday's, Wednesday's or Thursday's business, because that is a perfectly proper—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The business on all those days remains unchanged. The hon. Gentleman had his opportunity earlier in the day to raise the matter with the Leader of the House.

Mr. John Gorst: I am not quite clear from what my right hon. Friend said whether a motion has been tabled or is about to be tabled. In any case, I put it to him that it would be a great help if he would couple with the discussion on the Olympic Games in connection with the affairs in Afghanistan what a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have been pressing for a long time, and that is the condemnation of the Soviet Union's attitude towards Soviet Jews. Many of us have expressed the view that the Olympic Games should be not held in Moscow for that reason as well.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My hon. Friend has raised a most important point. The question of human rights is indivisible. The action in Afghanistan is an extension of the denial of human rights to the Jewish community. I cannot promise an amendment to the motion, although it is perfectly proper for my hon. Friend to raise that point.

Mr. Michael English: I add my congratulations to the Leader of the House on his sensible decision. Will the Government conform

to the will of the House when it is expressed on Monday? If the motion is defeated, will the Government drop their advocacy of the boycott? If the motion is carried, will the Government take all such steps as may be open to them to order those concerned not to go to the Games and to withdraw from their organisations any subsidies from the taxpayers if they disobey? Will the will of the House be enforced by the Government, or shall we just engage in pure chat?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is a hypothetical series of questions. A declaration of the will of the House is a major event and I would certainly recommend to the Cabinet that it would have to be taken extremely seriously. Naturally, what action would follow on that would have to be decided by the Cabinet. A declaration of the will of the House is of major importance in our political life.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: In view of the terms of the motion, which is extremely clear, and the fact that it is a Government motion, will the right hon. Gentleman reiterate that there will be a free vote on the Government side of the House? I understand that there will be a free vote on the Opposition side.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am happy to give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman. I now understand that there will be a free vote for all hon. Members, and that is how it should be.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House accept that a number of people have strong reservations about the way in which the Government are using the Business Statement to bring about a debate that is designed to intimidate athletes? The Government did not provide the same facilities in the case of cruise missiles—which was a disgrace. Will the Government now follow this precedent and give an assurance to the House that in future defence Divisions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks may be relevant on Monday, but they are not relevant now.

Mr. Cryer: Is this a precedent that will be followed in defence and EEC Divisions?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I fully respect the strength of conviction that the hon. Gentleman holds on this matter, but I do not think that this is the appropriate moment to debate it. The hon. Gentleman is always present, and that is one of the troubles. He is too conscientious. No doubt he will be here on Monday.

Mr. Christopher Price: May I press the Leader of the House a little further about what the Government's reaction will be if they are defeated on Monday? He has gone a long way in his answer, but will he give an undertaking that if the Government are defeated they will immediately withdraw the ban on civil servants and soldiers?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that there has been a ban on civil servants. The Government will not give special facilities to civil servants. That is a different matter. However, all those matters will have to be reconsidered.

Mr. James Kilfedder: As the Conservatives, when in Opposition, refused to allow a simple majority for the Scottish people on devolution, will the Leader of the House acknowledge that a small majority on Monday night will not indicate a strong opposition to Olympic athletes going to Moscow in the absence of taking action such as the withdrawal of the British ambassador until after the Olympics?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is erecting a hypothesis on a hypothesis. I cannot tell what people will think about a result that has not yet been decided. To do that, I would have to have a prophetic function, which I do not possess.

NORTHERN IRELAND (APPROPRIATION)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.
This draft order is being presented under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
The main purpose of the order is to authorise the issue out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund of an additional £93 million for 1979–80, and this is detailed in part I of the schedule. The Vote on account for 1980–81 set out in part II of the schedule enables us to have cash in hand at the commencement of the next financial year but has no relationship to proposed actual expenditure for 1980–81. The provision is a crude 45 per cent. of what is expected to be spent this year, 1979–80. Parliament is simply being asked to approve the release of money now, so that sufficient cash will be available to meet the expenditure of Northern Ireland Departments between 1 April 1980 and the date on which the total amounts provided for in the 1980–81 main Estimates become available. The House will have an opportunity to consider these Estimates in detail in a few months' time, so I shall concentrate my remarks this evening on the additional provision which is being sought for the current financial year.
The services for which extra money is required in 1979–80 are listed in part I of the schedule to the draft order, and further details are contained in the Northern Ireland spring Supplementary Estimates volume, copies of which are available in the Library. Northern Ireland Members and spokesmen for the Opposition parties have also received a copy of an explanatory memorandum which I have circulated to them, as I proposed during the last debate in this House on 11 December 1979. I trust that this practice has proved helpful.
As on the two previous occasions on which this Administration have presented appropriation orders, my ministerial colleagues are with me on the Government Front Bench so that full answers may be


given to matters relative to their departmental responsibilities and in respect of which right hon. and hon. Members have been kind enough to give advance notice.
Hon. Members will have noted from the documents to which I have referred that the single most significant feature of these Estimates is the proportion which relates to public sector pay increases, some £51 million out of a total of just over £93 million. The £51 million is spread across several of the Votes in the spring Supplementary Estimates volume, but the main groups of staff are teachers, for whom a further £11 million is sought, Health Service staff, for whom an additional £29 million is included, and civil servants, for whom £4½ million is sought.
Pay in the public sector in Northern Ireland is determined in almost every instance by reference to corresponding pay groups in Great Britain, and the bulk of the additional provision now being sought arises out of agreements which apply on a national basis. Furthermore, all pay rises provided for in the spring Supplementary Estimates have, of course, been approved by the responsible authority. Nevertheless, I think it is worth while reflecting for a moment on the claim which public sector pay makes upon resources and, hence, the burden which it imposes on the general body of taxpayers, including, of course, employees in the public sector. Nor should those responsible for negotiating pay settlements, whether in the public or private sectors, lose sight of the inflationary implications of pay increases which are not matched by increases in productivity.
It will, perhaps, help to put the extra £51 million required for pay awards in perspective if it is compared with a cost of around £30 million for a new 600-bed hospital, the cost of 3,000 kidney machines, the cost of acute hospital services for 2,000 in-patients a year or an average £1·3 million per mile for a new dual carriageway.
I turn to the more detailed aspects of the draft order. I should like to draw the attention of the House to Class II, Vote 3, in which a net addition of just over £11 million is being sought to permit the Government's industrial development drive to be sustained. In particular, some £14 million is required to enable the Department of Commerce to meet

loan commitments in respect of several major new projects which have come to fruition since the main Estimates for the current year were considered by the House last summer.
The local enterprise development unit needs an additional £2 million to match the increased level of investment by small firms in Northern Ireland and the development agency requires an extra £4 million of public dividend capital. The overall requirements for this Vote are, however, partly offset by a reduction in grants and loans issued by the Northern Ireland Development Agency under direction from the Department of Commerce and by a saving of about £9½ million which is attributable to the four-month deferment of the payment of capital investment grants.
Hon. Members will recall that in the course of the appropriation order debate in December I referred to the reviews which have been undertaken of the present institutional arrangements for carrying on industrial development work in Northern Ireland and on the competitiveness and cost-effectiveness of the incentives available for new and expanding industry. Members will be interested to learn that an announcement of the Government's decisions in relation to these reviews will be made before Easter.
In Class III, Vote 1, provision is included for an additional £5 million for assistance to the gas industry in Northern Ireland. This is mainly in respect of the revenue deficits incurred by the gas undertakings during their 1978–79 trading years, for which Government support was promised in the statement on energy policy in Northern Ireland made to the House on 23 July last year.
The main increase in the housing Vote, Class V, Vote 1, is in Sub-head A1, which provides for an increase of almost £16 million for the revenue grant payable by the Department of the Environment to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The increase is attributable to a variety of causes, the main ones being pay increases, higher loan charges resulting from the rise in interest rates, greater expenditure on the maintenance of the housing stock, and the writing off of the accumulated deficit on the district heating account.
The House will recall that in the latter part of 1979 the Housing Executive


launched a programme of house sales to tenants. Some 160,000 tenants have been offered the opportunity to purchase their homes with the benefit of generous discounts off market values depending on the length of tenancies. More than 20,000 tenants have expressed an interest in the scheme, and the Housing Executive is now processing the applications.
Finally, I should like to direct the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to the subject of education, which is covered by the Votes within Class VIII of the spring Supplementary Estimates, and in particular higher education, for which provision is made in Class VIII, Vote 2.
Hon. Members will know that higher education in Northern Ireland is currently being considered by a review group under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Chilver. The group's task is to consider the needs of the Northern Ireland community for higher education in the 1980s and the 1990s. I am pleased to report also that work on the group's main remit is proceeding well and that the final report is expected to be available in the spring of next year. An interim report is expected in May on teacher training arrangements in the light of changes in the school population.
I have confined my remarks to what I regard as the major features of the draft order now before the House. My hon. Friends and I shall, of course, try to answer any questions within our separate departmental responsibilities that may be raised by right hon. and hon. Members during the debate. If for any reason we cannot do so, the point will be noted and the Minister concerned will write to the right hon. or hon. Member. I commend the draft order to the House.

Mr. Brynmor John: It is always pleasant to welcome the Government's willingness to meet the wishes of the House, and I warmly welcome the explanatory document that has been submitted. It is a comprehensive document, and it has helped our thinking and preparation for this debate.
In the censure debate two weeks ago, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that Northern Ireland was prepared to take its fair share of public expenditure cuts. Tonight we are

considering what is fair in the Northern Ireland context. Does that mean—as the Government seem to think it does—a per capita assessment? Northern Ireland has 2·75 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom and under such an assessment should bear 2·75 per cent. of the cuts. Or should the assessment take account of the economic and social deprivation, both historical and current, in Northern Ireland? In The Guardian, under six expenditure heads, it was stated that Northern Ireland required 31 per cent. more than the rest of the United Kingdom.
Does the assessment also need to take account of the impact that a decline in the social and economic fabric has on the hopes of peaceful progress in Northern Ireland? There is no direct link between poverty and terrorism, but most people agree that economic and social decline imperil the security and constitutional advance to which hon. Members have directed so much attention recently.
Northern Ireland is more dependent upon public expenditure than any other area in the United Kingdom. Without it, prosperity levels would not be as high as they are. Since people are lower paid, the social wage—that is the standard of living provided by public expenditure—is more important to the lower paid than it is to the higher paid.
I sometimes think that the inhabitants of Northern Ireland have good reason to be critical of the time that we devote in the House to Northern Ireland economic and social issues. Even a debate on the Appropriation Fund is incomplete and premature. In exchanges following the Business Statement today, we heard that the public expenditure White Paper will not be published until the Budget announcement. That is Hamlet without the prince. There is no doubt that the White Paper will call for further expenditure cuts. The only guess that we have to make is exactly how much will be involved. The range runs from the Prime Minister's typically hip-shooting £2,000 million estimate during a television broadcast to the more modest £750 million which is all the spending Ministers have offered to the long-suffering Financial Secretary.
If Northern Ireland takes its fair—or, as I suggest, unfair—share of the cuts, all the matters that we are considering today


will be affected, to the detriment of the well-being of the Northern Ireland people.
The Class I Vote on agriculture is of importance in itself and also because it affects employment in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) hopes to speak about that in more detail later. We are completely opposed to the proposed ending of the agricultural trust. That decision was taken without firsthand investigation. It is likely to damage the marketing effort which the Government seek to promote in the Province.
Class II involves a substantial amount of the Estimate. It represents a real difficulty. To the general recession that faces the United Kingdom must be added the chronic structural weakness of Northern Ireland's economy. Unemployment is at a level of 11·6 per cent.—the highest for 40 years, in spite of what was said at Question Time last Thursday—and is likely to rise substantially in the next few months.
Over 4,000 redundancies have occurred or been announced in Northern Ireland in the last two months. Jobs in prospect have amounted to only half that number. In 1979 there were nearly 9,000 redunancies and about 4,500 jobs in prospect. Jobs in prospect are always announced as if they were facts. As the Belfast Telegraph said, only about 50 per cent. of the jobs promised materialise. That is the experience of the Republic as well as of Northern Ireland. Such jobs do not occur in the same time scale. Redundancies occur here and now. Closures occur within weeks or months, whereas some jobs in prospect, about which we speak with pride, will not materialize until 1984 or 1985.
I am not trying to be partisan, but I am trying to indicate the serious nature of the problem. We must do at least twice as well in new job attractions even to match the present redundancies—in other words, to stand still. With an unemployment rate of 11·6 per cent., we must do far better than simply stand still. Such a note indicates the need to protect existing jobs, to maintain a high level of public investment and to maintain and promote a high level of public encouragement of investment.
I had believed that the question of the inquiry into the job creation agencies

was, like Brigadoon, one that appeared every 100 years and was then promptly forgotten. This is at least the third time that I have solemnly been assured that the report of the inquiry is imminent. The Minister has narrowed the time in which the report can be announced, and I am grateful to him for that.

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman appreciates the difficulties that we face in these matters. We are at fault by about six weeks only since we first mentioned the possibility of the report being announced. That is nothing like as bad as his own Administration, who, over the review of the Rent Acts, promised a report for five years but never produced it.

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman is attempting to introduce an unwarrantably partisan note into the debate—not, however, to my discomfort. The difference between the delay to which he referred and the delay of the inquiry's report is that that affects the morale of people still working in the Northern Ireland Development Agency and the local development employment unit. That is why I am glad that the announcement will be made as quickly as possible.
Whatever pressure exists, it is advantageous if people outside the Civil Service serve on these bodies. They inject outside ideas and outside influences into the discussions. I hope that whatever mechanism is devised will not remove the independent element in the discussions.
Our sins return to us from time to time. The Minister mentioned the Labour Administration's five-year delay. He will now, no doubt, regret his statement last November, when he said that he was not aware of any job that was in jeopardy as a result of the Government's public expenditure cuts. The combination of cuts in public expenditure and the cash limits—which assumed an 8 per cent. level of inflation, whereas inflation is more than 17 per cent.—has hit public authorities very hard indeed.
The closure of the Urban and Rural Improvement Corporation meant the loss of 1,300 jobs. Before 1982, 820 Civil Service jobs will disappear. In Enterprise Ulster, 800 jobs have been lost to date and there is every indication that there are more to follow. Those figures do not take account of the rather hazy effect of


the selective employment premium, the abolition of which is provided for in the Estimates. The effect may be gauged by the fact that the claims upon that fund are said, in the Estimates, to be rather larger than was expected.
Those facts, together with the flood of private redundancies about which we read almost daily in the newspapers, paint an extremely gloomy picture for the Northern Ireland economy. The Cooper and Lybrand report forecast a 17 per cent. rate of unemployment. That means that 100,000 people will be unemployed in Northern Ireland. Even if one assumes that some of the criticisms of that report are justified and that the probable figure will be 14 per cent., that will still bring a great deal more misery to the Province.
This is not merely a general recession that affects all parts of the United Kingdom equally. In the Irish Times this week, the Secretary of State is reported as saying, in reply to the SDLP, that when the recession ends Northern Ireland will be well placed to take advantage of the prosperity that flows back. I hope that that statement will not mislead anybody. I am sure that it was not intended to mislead. However, we must recognise that Northern Ireland goes into this recession in a chronically disadvantaged position economically compared with other regions. Therefore, unless serious attempts are made to put that right during the recession, Northern Ireland will be disadvantaged when the upturn comes.
I should like to refer to three areas in the appropriations. The first relates to Lear aircraft. We have had some details about the form of loan, such as whether it will be taken by loan or equity share capital. There have been some optimistic noises about the number of orders that have already been obtained. But how likely is it that the jobs—numbered at 1,250—will be translated into reality? More important, when will that be achieved?
The second question, unfortunately, impinges on a number of Government Departments. How was the deal constructed? My information is that the Industrial Development Advisory Council was not consulted about the deal or about any facet of it. That is a generalised complaint which I shall have to raise two or three times during my speech. Bodies in Northern Ireland are now

complaining that there has been a lack of consultation by the Government. That is extremely demoralising to people who spend a great deal of time and effort in serving the Province in that way.
When I was in Belfast last week, a news item suggested that another light aircraft industry was negotiating the possibility of coming to Northern Ireland. What are the prospects of that materialising?
Lear aircraft are included in the section which deals with aircraft and shipbuilding. I therefore want to deal with the serious position of Harland and Wolff. I have written to the Secretary of State about this, and I believe that the situation is indeed serious. We all welcome the £10 million order for marine engines that was announced this week. I believe that they are the slow-speed engines, about which negotiations took place for some time. That will help to stabilise the marine engine division of the shipbuilding firm. However, there are a number of other areas of acute anxiety.
First, I understand that steel work at the yard will run out at week 38—that is, in September. Unless work can be secured before the end of March, continuity cannot be ensured and further redundancies in the group will be inevitable. They will add to the present redundancy plans that will mature in April. That threatens the viability of the yard, and it is therefore necessary for the Government to take action.
There are four points on which I should like to press the Government. First, can the firm have permission to order steel before the end of this month in order to ensure that in September it is able to continue work? Secondly, can the Government now give a decision upon the financial bridging, which was referred to in October, for the construction of a bulk carrier by Harland and Wolff? I understand that that was tentatively in the process of being ordered by British Steel. However, if there is no such order, will the Government give permission to the firm to build a bulk carrier on speculation, so that the work force, which cannot be reassembled quickly, is not broken up?
Thirdly, while I accept that most naval work is highly specialised and is therefore inappropriate to Harland and Wolff, nevertheless the yards which undertake


work for the Royal Navy are heavily loaded. There are Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels, which do not need such specialised equipment, which are in need of building or refurbishment. Can the Minister assure me that they will be considered for placement with Harland and Wolff, or will he accelerate the meeting which the unions have requested of the Ministry of Defence to discuss the well-being of those orders? Fourthly, is there a possibility of small orders being secured for the electrical department, so that the highly skilled work force is kept together?
What is the Government's view of the man-made fibre industry? The EEC's restrictions on imports have been described as too little and too late. Even employers have said that those restrictions are insufficient to prevent the redundancies that have already been announced. The shedding of labour in the man-made fibre industry was a constant feature last year. Apparently, that shedding of labour is without end. I hope that the Minister will give some reassurance to those who work in that sector.
As regards Class V, I remind the House that more than 20 per cent. of houses in Northern Ireland have only one of the basic amenities. Northern Ireland is the third most expensive area in the United Kingdom for new housing. The proportion of first-time home buyers is one of the lowest in the United Kingdom. The role of the Housing Executive is therefore crucial.
I record my disappointment that the Housing Executive will have to trim its budget by £16 million next year. In the Estimates we read that housing associations have fallen behind target. According to the explanatory legend, that appears to be the result of delays in land acquisition and the repayment of compensation. Perhaps the Minister will explain the reason for that in more detail. Are the Government satisfied that those delays will be minimised in future?
We cannot ignore the sudden rise in Housing Executive rents. They represent a rise of £1·60 a week. If someone is in receipt of a district heating scheme, that rise will constitute a rent rise of 50 per cent. How were those figures compiled? Were they the result of Government diktat? Obviously, that must be so. The Bel-

fast Telegraph of 8 March 1980 contains a report to the effect that the Housing Executive had complained about a lack of consultation. It said that the first that it had heard of such rent rises was in a public announcement. If that is true, it represents a disgraceful state of affairs. The Government should clarify the position.
If the Housing Executive did not assist in compiling these figures, what is the Government's estimate of the effect of those rent increases on rent arrears? Will rent arrears increase from the present £10·6 million? if rent arrears are increased as a result of the Government's unilateral action, will the Housing Executive be penalised?

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Of course, rent arrears will increase.

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman is right. An increase in rent arrears is inevitable.
Turning to Class VIII, which covers education, I emphasise the need for consistency in order to remedy the deprivation and inequality of opportunity that has beset Northern Ireland for many years. It is with a sense of shock that we have realised that, by changing the base year, the apparent saving of £6 million demanded by the Government through school meals and transport will be a saving of £9·3 million. That represents an increase of 50 per cent. Again, that action was taken without consultation. The Irish National Teachers' Organisation complained that no one had approached it. That action was taken at the last moment and after the revised budget—needed to take account of the £6 million cut—had been prepared.
Even on the basis of £6 million—the lower basis—20,000 children will lose the school meals that they previously received. In rural areas a three-child family will pay an extra £8·40 a week on transport and meals. The Minister has given us a solemn lecture about how wage claims influence inflation. What about the Government-induced inflation which the scrapping of public expenditure and transfer to private expenditure will cause? On that basis, how can we expect parents to see education as anything other than an expense and for there to be pressure for children to leave school to earn money or receive State benefits as soon as possible?
The evidence is in the composition of the university population. In England and Wales, the children of manual workers form 23 per cent. of the university population. We are rightly critical of that. It is a gross under-representation of that class as a percentage of the population. In Northern Ireland it is only 10 per cent., which is a gross waste of talent, and the Government should immediately launch an inquiry and consider remedies.
The children of the poor tend to start in the education system at a disadvantage. They tend not to have the home advantage and, therefore, begin their education behind their contemporaries. Nursery schools are one answer, yet in Northern Ireland only 4 per cent. of children under five receive nursery education. A mother in England has four times the chance of day care for her child, including pre-nursery school groups, and 18 times the chance of getting her child into a nursery school. The situation in the Province is a disgrace, and we should try to remedy it.
The Government's response has been to announce this week proposals to change the duty on local education boards to a power to provide nursery education. Instead of providing more money to create more nursery places, they are saying to education boards that they can provide nursery education but that they do not have to if they do not want to do so.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is another part of the picture in Northern Ireland, where a substantial and comparatively high proportion of children below the age of five attend primary schools. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, to some extent, a comparison of nursery schools alone is misleading.

Mr. John: I was about to deal with that. I reject the argument that that is a reason against nursery provision. The admission of children under age to primary schools results in grossly overcrowded classes.
To take again the figures issued by the Belfast Telegraph, 75,000 primary school children are in classes of 31 or more and 14,000 in classes of 36 or more. Individual attention is particularly important

for the younger child, and especially so to remedy inherent deprivation and disadvantage.
Classes of that size are no substitute for nursery schooling. That is particularly so in the inner city. Belfast is probably the repository of many oversize classes and the worst conditions. However, in that area the board proposes to dismiss 80 primary school teachers in the next school year out of the 250 originally proposed. The December figures show that we have allowed 782 teachers to become unemployed. Faced with such an educational legacy, how can we allow that?
I appeal to the Government to use their Class VIII funds to increase nursery schools, particularly in the poorer areas. They should also launch an attack on the size of classes and take in unemployed teachers in so doing.
I believe firmly in the comprehensive system. Statistics show that the selective process overwhelmingly favours children from middle-class homes. If a child from a lower income family gets to a grammar school and into the fifth form, the pressure for him to leave to eke out the family income is tremendous. I agree wholeheartedly with the spokesman of the National Association of Schoolmasters in Northern Ireland about the need for a sixth form grant to be introduced in Northern Ireland. The Government should pioneer the grant. It would not remove all the disadvantages in the area, but it would remove a very significant cause of it. If young people of 16 and 17 believe that they can further their education without being a drain on their parents' budget, they are more likely to prolong their education, to the benefit of all.
I turn now to Class IX, dealing with health. I intend to deal only with the desperate problem of infant mortality. Northern Ireland is the worst area in the United Kingdom for infant mortality. It has one of the worst records in Western Europe. That is generally recognised to be an indication of poverty. Greater prosperity would help. I beg the Government not to fall into the trap of thinking that the key is better hospital facilities. The question of the inadequacy of care enters into the matter at a much earlier stage than that at which hospitals can be expected to cope. It depends on the level


of community health care that is introduced. I should like to know the Government's thoughts.
Class XI relates, among other things, to the Commissioner for Complaints. We have seen the retirement of the original commissioner and the resignation of the new one. I believe that the resigner took the right and honourable course. It would have been better to have checked more thoroughly to avoid a highly embarrassing situation for all concerned. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is acting for Northern Ireland. I should like to know whether the Government believe that he can physically manage this supervision. With the number of cases that seem to be proliferating in all parts of the United Kingdom, I think that the job should be split. If he can manage, is it intended to be a short-term or long-term appointment? If it is to be a short-term appointment, how long is that likely to be?
I hope that the tenor of my speech has not been to praise the record of the previous Labour Government and say how marvellous were matters before May and how wretched since that time. That would be an easy speech to make. What I want is that we should recognise the magnitude of the task ahead. Where our attitudes differ is over the realisation of the magnitude of those economic and social tasks.
The Government are complacent not in their individual care for Northern Ireland but in their public expenditure policies. That leads the Opposition to believe that it is not important to the Government whether Northern Ireland has a high state of public provision. Those policies will combine a reducing quality of service with burdens through extra charges on top of the higher cost of living that already prevails in Northern Ireland. The policies will impoverish the economic and social life of Northern Ireland at the very time that it needs to be enriched to aid the drive for peaceful progress in the Province. I appeal to the Secretary of State, with no great confidence, since I know that the die is probably already cast, to try to resist the public expenditure cuts that are threatened. Northern Ireland does not need them and cannot afford them.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I agree with much that the spokesman for the Opposition has said, but I disagree with one remark in relation to the Parliamentary Commissioner, who was appointed and then forced to resign. I say "forced to resign". He was placed in an untenable position. I believe that the Government were wrong in their handling of the situation. People have come to believe from the fact that he resigned that he had acted wrongly when he was chief officer of education. In fact, all that he had done was to give the principal of a school two weeks to put the school in order. Two weeks was not an unreasonable time, bearing in mind that the school had been inadequately run for years, and the school committee knew that.
The chief officer of education was rightly appointed to his post and he should have remained in it. He is not guilty of anything, but many people in Northern Ireland, because of the publicity, believe that he acted wrongly. The Government are at fault in forcing that gentleman's resignation. They should have told him to stand his ground.
I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said. I pick out one matter only, and that is the question of the textile and clothing trades. Textile and clothing workers in Northern Ireland, like those in the rest of the United Kingdom, face a disastrous future. In 1968, 30,000 people were employed in the clothing trade in Northern Ireland. Since October last year 1,000 jobs have gone, and it seems that the present number employed will be further reduced by about 4,000 if the Department does not support the firms with the temporary short-time working compensation scheme.
These industries are competing not only against countries in the Far East such as China, the Philippines, and Hong Kong but also with Portugal and Eastern European countries. At a meeting held in the Palace of Westminster, I saw a suit that had come from Eastern Europe. That suit was being sold by the wholesaler to the retailer at £9·75 cannot be produced at that price in this country. The materials alone would cost that amount. The reason why such suits can be sold


by the wholesaler at that price is that the exporting countries want the foreign currency.
Our manufacturers, whether in the clothing or the textile trades, are entitled to full support from the Government against such competition. I hope that the Government will help our manufacturers and completely suspend import licences for made-up clothing for a period of at least six months.
With regard to the fishing industry, the Government take the attitude that the money should be given for the construction of new vessels—especially the replacement of old vessels by new vessels. I urge the Government to bear in mind those skippers who wish to improve their boats and who so far have been refused Government grants. That is very short sighted and it is wrong.
I recently brought to the attention of the Minister responsible in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a skipper who wished to install a new wheelhouse and other essential machinery in his boat to enable him to compete with others engaged in the fishing trade, and aid was refused. Yet hundreds of thousands of pounds can be granted to others, some of whom are not traditionally involved in the fishing industry, to enable them to construct new boats.
The appropriation order shows that expenditure on teacher education continues at much the same rate as previously, though allowing for inflation. However, the Government are looking for savings on school transport which will cause hardship for many families in Northern Ireland. What I do not understand is why the Government should swing the axe there when they could make cuts elsewhere in the education budget. For instance, I find it incomprehensible that the Government are still prepared to find money to continue sectarian divisions in teacher training. The number of students entering the three teacher training colleges is so small that there is no longer any justification for keeping three institutions in existence. A change in that situation would save £2 million a year, which would go a long way towards the total savings that the Government are seeking.
In opening this debate, the Minister referred to the Chilvers committee on higher

education. It will deliver an interim report in May on teacher training in Northern Ireland. That will give the Government an opportunity to take decisions in the 1980–81 financial year which could save substantial sums of money. The sums saved could be used in preventing a charge for school transport or improving the teacher-pupil ratio in our schools. We must spend more money on education in Northern Ireland—not on administration but on the teaching side—in order to ensure that our children receive the very best instruction possible.
The Government could do a lot on the issue of sectarian education. It is lamentable that they have failed to grasp the nettle of sectarian education, just as their predecessors failed to do anything at all. In my opinion, Church and State should be kept separate and apart. Taxpayers' money should not be used to support, prolong or give sustenance to sectarian-based education in Northern Ireland.
Sadly, the reality is that taxpayers' money is used to maintain two separate systems of education. This is not only a waste of hard-earned money paid by people in taxes. It is even worse. Sectarian education divides the community. Children have a right to go to school together, to play, to learn and to grow up together. That fundamental right is being denied them and the result is the awful consequences, which the Government should not complacently accept, of educational apartheid which has existed far too long in Ulster.
This appropriation order gives the lie to the Government's claim that provision for health has not been cut in Northern Ireland. The Minister responsible for health repeated this claim in reply to a parliamentary question last week. The claim is a distortion of the facts. The £29 million extra for hospitals, community health and personal social services, outlined on page 59 of the spring Supplementary Estimates, is for pay awards only. There is no additional provision to meet the erosion in the purchasing power of money since the original estimate or the earlier appropriation order. Inflation has run at 17·8 per cent. over the last 12 months and compensation is to be paid at 14 per cent. That means that the health boards are nearly 4 per cent. worse off than they were last April. Next year it looks as if they will be a further 7 per


cent. worse off. Against that background, how can the Minister claim that care of elderly patients is not adversely affected? Such a claim is beyond comprehension.
Last year we had a clear reduction in the capital programme, which includes care of the elderly. There is an accumulating effect with capital cuts. The major part of the staff of the four health boards over the next few years will need to be devoted to the care of the elderly in their homes, hospitals or other institutions. This means an internal reallocation of staff, resources and buildings.
The private homes for the elderly may need alterations or improvements, which the people cannot afford. The care of the elderly is a social priority which the Government must accept and which cannot be ignored. There is a desperate shortage—certainly in my constituency, and I think that it must apply to other parts of the Province—of places in old people's homes. There is equally a disgraceful shortage of hospital beds for the elderly. To the Government and the Civil Service, it amounts to statistics. But for those involved—the families who are no longer able to cope with elderly persons who quite clearly need hospital attention—it is unacceptable in this day and age that they are not provided with hospital beds or, if there is no one to look after them properly, that they are not accommodated in old people's homes.
Training schools for convicted persons or persons on remand need not be of as high a standard as homes for the aged or unfit. Millions of pounds were spent on the borstal in Millisle in my constituency whose function has changed. Much less would have been sufficient. The boys in the borstal there enjoy better conditions than many old people—even better than the conditions enjoyed by many people in the older schools. Why should young people who lead blameless lives and who are striving to improve themselves to be of benefit to the community be worse off than those in a borstal or similar institution? I do not suggest that the borstal boys should suffer. If the public realised the amount of money spent and the equipment provided, they would be surprised—because that money is not spent on their own children.
Replies to my recent parliamentary questions have shown that 74 per cent. to 78 per cent. of all recurrent expenditure goes on salaries and wages in the health services and 60 per cent. on educational services, hospitals, schools and welfare homes. It follows that all those will contract in the next financial year. The contraction will mean unemployment for teachers, nurses, medical staff and administrators.
I cite the overstaffing which exists in certain sectors. Take the case of the Royal Victoria hospital, for example. Far too much of its financial resources is dissipated on non-medical expenditure. Much of it is due to the extraordinary increase in the number of non-medical staff. Since the Mater hospital in Belfast came within the Health Service, the number of non-medical staff in the offices has increased six times. The taxpayer is entitled to ask why those jobs have been created. What are those people doing? Are they just shoving paper around from one office to the other? Why is not the money which goes on their salaries and wages spent on the patients in the hospital, on providing more beds or to provide in North Down a new hospital to replace the outdated hospital in New-townards, and, indeed, to make the Bangor hospital effective?
It would be a pity if cash limits, which are a crude instrument of expenditure control, were to lead to hasty decisions on savings. The need to show savings is more demanding than the careful working out of spending priorities. There is a difference between cuts which get rid of waste—there is evidence of a great deal of waste—and cuts which remove an essential service. There is a difference between cuts which force civil servants to think about priorities and cuts which are so severe that across-the-board savings have to be made with little attention to priorities and with great hardship to the people in Northern Ireland.
Four years of economic fasting may be good for the soul, but it is very bad for the unemployment figures, and unemployment in Northern Ireland is unacceptably high. I think that at the moment it is 11·6 per cent. A reliable forecast in Northern Ireland has put the figure of unemployment for 1981 at 90,000 or 100,000, and no Minister has


been able to contradict the findings of that report. Can we have a statement from the Government that they intend to fight and fight to make sure that the unemployment figures will not go above the existing level and that they will not impose the same cuts on Northern Ireland as are imposed on the rest of the United Kingdom, bearing in mind, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd said, that there is a greater need in Northern Ireland, an area of economic and social deprivation, for more money to be spent, since that area depends largely on public expenditure?
There is nothing in these Estimates that holds out hope for an improvement in the employment situation. It is all very well for the Ministers to claim that the first national priority is to deal with the cancer of inflation. No one disputes that, but cure will not come from major surgery. That course, for Ulster, means further disasters and hardship in an area which is already well behind the rest of the United Kingdom in wages, with a lower standard of living and a higher cost of living.
May I close with a brief reference to the BBC Northern Ireland orchestra. It has been told by the BBC that it will be disbanded, and I believe that the total saving will not amount to very much. I think it is a disgrace that Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom which will be left with no BBC orchestra. Scotland will have one left, the BBC Wales orchestra is being maintained and England will continue to have its BBC orchestras. But Northern Ireland is to suffer once again.
I urge the Government to bear in mind that this means more than just 30 people becoming redundant because they are not going to be absorbed into the Ulster orchestra. It means those people will not be available for teaching music or for helping to improve culture in Northern Ireland—and, by God, we need more culture in the Province, not less. Therefore, I believe that these cuts announced by the Government and the Government's economic policy are wreaking havoc in the lives of the Ulster people.

Mr. Harold McCusker: I want to discuss briefly this evening under Class III, Vote 1, the present state of the gas industry in Northern Ireland and the so-called orderly rundown of that industry—not for the first time, and, I am sure, not for the last time.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State ably assisted by the Under-Secretary, probably thought that he had driven another nail—perhaps, they would like to believe, the final nail—into the coffin of the Northern Ireland gas industry. In doing so they brought closer the prospect of another 1,000 people or so being added to the dole queue in Northern Ireland. That does not seem to concern them unduly.
They also brought closer a period of distress, expense and dislocation for many thousands of gas consumers, many of whom live in the underprivileged inner city areas of Belfast and who have never known any other source of heating or cooking energy, who are elderly and do not at all relish either the expense or the disturbance of having to find alternatives.
The Government, who pride themselves on providing choice to the people, are depriving Northern Ireland consumers of that choice. People in Northern Ireland who think that that is a light matter should visit the Ideal Home Exhibition at Earls Court. They will see there what North Sea gas has done for the gas industry in Great Britain, what it has done for gas consumers in Great Britain and what could be theirs if only the Government would make another choice.
The Under-Secretary of State cannot be unaware of the consequences of closure for many hard-pressed industries in Northern Ireland which require specialist gas processing in many of their operations. The problem there is only beginning to raise its head. Why should the Government wish to spend perhaps £100 million in closing down the industry when it could spend £100 million and obtain a 40 per cent. grant from the EEC, and thus have in the Province an industry that would inject economic well-being into the Province?
The Minister might wish to dispute my comments on closure. When I asked him what estimate had been made of the cost of closure he was reticent. He said that he could not provide a useful estimate until all the undertakings had decided to close. I am sure that he does not want to run away from the consequences or the cost of closure, but he could be more forthcoming.
The Housing Executive said that the cost of converting its homes would be £25 million, and that is probably a conservative estimate. If the Minister does not believe that that is the right figure, will he say what he thinks the figure is? Belfast city council estimates that it would cost £30 million to close the industry in the city alone. The cost of closure of the other 12 undertakings has to be added to that. If I say that this exercise in destruction will cost £100 million, there is a fair probability that that estimate would not be far wrong. People ask why we should spend that much to destroy something when by spending a similar amount we could give a tremendous boost to the Province.
Some things have become clear in the past six months. For the past few years there has been a feeling in Northern Ireland, shared by me, that there were political reasons for not wanting to provide natural gas to the Province.
In a recent interview in the Belfast Telegraph the Minister was reported as follows:
Mr. Shaw was adament that the decision last summer not to build a natural gas pipeline across the Irish Sea was right and based on sound economic reasons.
He said it was 'nonsense' to say the decision against the pipeline was a political one because it would mean building a physical link between the province and the mainland.
'This is borne out by my encouragement for studies into an electricity cable link with the mainland.'
I am glad that the Minister was not considering any political implications, but he would be wrong to think that there were not political implications when certain other people were considering the matter. I have personal experience of knowing the minds of certain Ministers in the previous Government 12 months ago. They were concerned about the political implications. Political implications also concern the European Community. That might not surprise people when they know


that the comments that I am about to read come from Mr. Richard Burke, whose origins lead one to suppose that he might be aware of political considerations. He provided the Northern Ireland Gas Employers Board with the comments made by the Energy Department of the European Commission on its report, which included the following paragraph:
The Northern Ireland Gas Employers Board in its report Natural Gas for Northern Ireland proposed option 3 without giving any justification. It is suspected from the tone of the report that this preference may be at least partly based on a political desire to be integrated with the rest of the UK gas supply system.
What motivated us was to get cheap gas for consumers in Northern Ireland. The political implications came a very poor second. I hope that when Mr. Burke reads last year's annual report of the Electricity Supply Board in the Republic he will not come to the same conclusion.
We are told that the ESB is pressing for an inter-connector between Anglesey and Dublin. That is a sound economic proposition from the Republic's point of view. I say to the Minister that there will be only one inter-connector across the Irish Sea, and I want that inter-connector to be across the North Channel. I hope that he will not put the option for that industry on the long finger. Some people do not worry too much about the political implications of integration when it serves their purpose.
The Under-Secretary of State told me on 21 February that natural gas could not be supplied on a viable basis. I presume that when he made the decision on viability he was doing so on the basis of the options set out in the British Gas Corporation's consultancy report. It showed that
There would be a continuing deficit into the 1980s".
If he had accepted that document on its face value he would have been entitled to reach the conclusion that it was not a viable proposition.
What are the views of certain other people on that report? I shall not give the views of the chairman of the Gas Employers Board or of a Unionist politician. I wish to put on record the views of the Northern Ireland Economic Council on the report, and of certain assertions made by the Minister in his energy

statement last year. I apologise for reading long extracts, but it is important that those views are put on the record to counter the arguments put forward by the Minister. The report states that:
The Government has decided against providing a natural gas pipeline to Northern Ireland: instead it is to assist in the orderly running down of the existing gas undertakings. Although it is possible to argue a case for this policy, the justifications advanced in the policy statement are totally inadequate.
It goes on to question the basis of the report, stating that:
There are a number of serious deficiencies. Chief among these is the assumption that Northern Ireland should be charged a much higher price for gas than any other region of the United Kingdom.
I should like the Minister to tell us whether he thinks that it would be fair for the British Gas Corporation to charge Northern Ireland more for gas than it charges other regions. The report says:
A second serious deficiency arises from the treatment of capital costs in the BGC study…It is possible to see how the British Gas Corporation, which only operates in Great Britain, could view Northern Ireland as a foreign country and discriminate against the Province in its gas pricing and capital cost allocation assumptions. Clearly the British Gas Corporation considered that, rightly or wrongly, it was in its commercial and other interests to keep Northern Ireland out of the gas grid. But it is more difficult to understand why Government Departments, which are aware that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, would wish to discriminate against a single region in this way. No doubt the explanation lies in the fact that the study was highly technical and the discrimination was implicit rather than explicit. Nonetheless the gas pricing and capital cost assumptions largely determined the outcome of the BGC study and some justification for them is required.
Those are the words of the Northern Ireland Economic Council. That is the condemnation of the study that I presume the Minister is using to establish viability. Those are comments on the assumptions that I assume the Minister is accepting in deciding that the Gas Corporation was right.
The Northern Ireland Economic Council made more serious criticisms of the report. It stated:
The inclusion of the debts and overdrafts of the existing gas undertakings also makes a substantial contribution to the non-viability of the gas pipeline. It is not usual in project appraisal to include past debts when evaluating a scheme.


Does the Minister think that the British Gas Corporation was right to include them in this assessment?
The council concludes:
It was council's concern about the deficiencies of the British Gas Corporation's study which led it to recommend in paragraph 36 of its earlier paper that no decision should be taken until a more satisfactory independent investigation had been carried out. It is highly regrettable that the Department of Commerce appears to have accepted the British Gas Corporation's gas price assumption and capital cost estimates when they both discriminate against Northern Ireland compared with other regions of the United Kingdom.
In short, the denial of access to cheaper North Sea gas discriminates against living standards and economic activity in Northern Ireland in a way that does not apply to any other region of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether his judgment on viability is based on the report that is indicated in the document prepared by the Northern Ireland Economic Council.
There has been a degree of fatalism in Northern Ireland about the industry. A misunderstanding has been deliberately created. It is based on the suggestion that natural gas in Great Britain is not all that much cheaper than in Northern Ireland and that with escalating prices the difference will be substantially reduced until there will be none. It is also claimed that gas will run out faster than we all thought—that it will be exhausted in a few years. It is now suggested that gas supplies will be exhausted earlier than the year 2000. Some say that it will be exhausted in 1995 while others say that that state will be reached by 1990.
I have my latest gas bill for an establishment not too far from the House. The cost per therm is stated to be 24·6p. What gas consumers in Northern Ireland would do to have their gas charged at that price! If we add 30 per cent. to that tariff, the charge becomes about 35p per therm. It may be assumed that that will be the price for perhaps another 12 months. What people in Northern Ireland would give to be able to pay 35p per therm, when some are paying 70p, some 80p and some even 90p per therm!
Does anyone believe that the Government will increase the price of gas per therm from about 25p to a sum approaching 100p over the next few years? They

would be foolish to believe that. The cost of other fuels will be moving ahead and the differential will be maintained. The people of Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland's industry are being deprived of a tremendous asset.
For how long would Northern Ireland benefit from the asset? There is hardly a better person to give an opinion on that than Sir Denis Rooke, the chairman of the British Gas Corporation. Last year's British Gas Review states:
Dealing with future gas supplies, Sir Denis said that we did not know how much natural gas would eventually be discovered in the North Sea and elsewhere around our coasts".
Sir Denis said:
My own opinion is that it would be virtually inconceivable that further major gas discoveries were not to materialise in the next decade or so. Elsewhere in the world, many of the largest gas discoveries have occurred in the secondary phase of exploration and we are still very much in the primary phase in United Kingdom waters. Furthermore, the technology of exploration is developing rapidly…It is our intention to manage reserves in a way which will enable us to maintain the level of natural gas availability to our premium customers until the end of the century and beyond.
Northern Ireland could have had at least 20 years of benefit from a tremendous asset. The cost of providing it is roughly the same as the cost of destroying it. We were to get some of our own money back from Europe to help us to provide it. The Government have turned down that opportunity. I presume that they think that that policy will somehow benefit the electricity industry.
The figures indicate that the take-up of electricity in Northern Ireland is roughly the same as on the mainland. The provision of gas, or the lack of gas, will not change that very much. If it were to change anything, it would perhaps divert users from other fuels such as oil. We shall not receive any benefit for Kilroot by closing our gas industry. The Minister quite properly said that we should be selling the Kilroot electricity to the Republic just as we sell many other commodities. So long as we sell it at a profit, I am only too glad to see it sold to the Republic.
In my constituency, where the problem exists, insufficient effort has been made to establish and maintain that link. The Minister knows that it is in the interests of the Republic to buy that electricity. He


also knows that the answer lies with the Government of the Republic if they want to buy it. Though the pylons may be blown up in Northern Ireland, nobody can be in any doubt that the bombs are made and the bombers lurk in the Republic. If Mr. Haughey wanted to buy our electricity he could easily ensure the continuity of supply. It is in that direction that the advantage of Kilroot lies, if it lies anywhere.
I want the Minister to answer my questions about viability. Others in the Province will try to obtain an objective study on the arguments about viability in the future. I hope that it is not too late to save the gas industry in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Before I take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), I think that the House should realise that we are in serious difficulty in Northern Ireland. This House should not forget that the matters raised in this debate and the present serious economic difficulties in Northern Ireland arise against the black backcloth of terrorism. This House should be reminded that the killings in Northern Ireland are gaining momentum and that valuable properties are being bombed and burned, such as the one in Coalisland, where many people were put out of employment.
The House should also realise that the first priority of the Government—a priority that they have so far failed to grasp—should be to deal with the mounting terrorism in the Province. I should not like this House to enter on this debate without having its attention drawn to the sobering backcloth of terrorism in Northern Ireland at this time. The Government have failed to take effective steps on security.
Having said that, I come to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Armagh. It is a disgrace that both the previous Administration and the present one came to the decisions that they did about the gas industry. Neither party can justify what has been done. I believe that a decision was made to let the gas industry in Northern Ireland go to the wall and that, that decision having been made, an attempt was then made to find a way of justifying it.
Any Government who had the opportunity of receiving a contribution from Europe towards the suggested pipeline and did not investigate all the possibilities associated with such aid stand indicted in this House. After all, the United Kingdom has poured money into the EEC and it is about time that we got something out of it. Here we had an opportunity to get back something of our own, but, despite all the strong language used by spokesmen of the previous Administration about the EEC, no effort was made at that time to get back some of the money that was available.
The gas industry makes about £400 million profit a year. It does not want anything to do with Northern Ireland, yet by investing some of its profitable millions it could help to save employment and save our industry. I regret the Prime Minister's attitude. At a meeting of the Belfast corporation with the leader of the Official Unionist Party, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and myself, we were asked to request a meeting with the Prime Minister and members of the council in order to put our view to the Prime Minister. It seems that that view will not even be listened to. The decision is made, and that is that.
I feel strongly that Northern Ireland has received shabby treatment, to say the least, in relation to the gas industry. When one takes into account what has been said in the House tonight and the indictment of bodies which have examined this issue, there is real cause for concern.
The poorer people of Northern Ireland have used gas. How will the little woman in the back street fare if she has to change her cooker and other appliances? What will she get from the Government when the gas industry is run down? She will be conveniently forgotten. But those affected are on the poverty line or below What will they get from the Government? What plan is there for an ordered rundown of the industry? Has a study been made of what will happen? How soon will the industry be run down? What is the time limit?
I do not believe that the Department has done its homework. It would have been better if an effort had been made to save the industry. If natural gas is found off the North Antrim coast, where will it go? It will not cone to Northern Ireland.


It will be added to the millions of pounds profit made by the gas industry on this side of the Channel. The time has come for the Government to face up to the problem.
The electricity industry in Northern Ireland depends on oil for its generation of supply. The cost of that electricity will rise higher and higher. That is a fact which the Government must face. The price of electricity will rise soon. An effort should be made to sell electricity to the Republic, as long as it is sold at a profit. If the Republic's Government really want it, they could take the necessary steps to safeguard the importation of electricity. The future of Northern Ireland's energy cannot be left to Kilroot.
There is talk of changing to coal-fired production of electricity. Can the Minister say anything about that? Will the Government follow the EEC? Will they ask for the millions of pounds available to convert from oil to coal-fired production? Has the Minister investigated that possibility? Those are the issues that really worry the Northern Ireland people.
I congratulate the people of Northern Ireland. They have fought for the gas industry because they do not want to see jobs go to the wall. It is a sad comment on both Conservative and Labour Administrations that they are guilty of presiding over the demise of the industry.
I wish to raise a matter under Class VIII, No. 4 with regard to school transport. Hon. Members who serve rural districts feel especially sore about the matter. Past Governments engaged in the closure of rural schools in a forceful manner. All sorts of pressures were put on communities, schools and school management committees to close the small schools in the hamlets and villages.
The Government said that the way to achieve a good educational system was to send children to the larger schools. When the small schools were closed, the Government gave a solemn promise to the parents concerned that free transport would be provided to take their children to the larger schools in other areas. The Government have reneged on that promise, which was part of the bribe that they offered to parents when seeking their co-operation in the closure of the small schools.
The Government have now taken a decision which means that the children, through no fault of their own, will have to travel some distance to school, and the parents will have to pay for transport. The Government have broken their promise. If the small schools had not been closed, the children would not need to travel to school.
The Government have a responsibility to be honest with the parents. It is their duty to keep the promises that they have made. There is no Minister in the House responsible for education in Northern Ireland. Neither this Administration nor the previous one felt that it was necessary for a Minister in the House of Commons to be answerable for education in Northern Ireland. They felt that another place—where they buried Caesar—was the appropriate place to discuss education in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister, when he replies, will give an echo from another place—I hope that it will not be an eerie echo—with regard to this matter.
Another matter of concern to Northern Ireland Members is the whole hospital system, how it is administered and what is happening within that system. I am speaking for the whole population of Northern Ireland when I say that there is great concern about the rundown of hospitals in certain areas, the destruction of hospitals and the programme to develop certain hospitals and to transport people to them.
I recently visited Omagh, where I found the people united against the Government's attempt to destroy the local hospital. In a recent newspaper article, the chairman of the council, Councillor Patrick Bogan, is quoted as saying:
A fragmented hospital system which isolates the majority of patients from the general hospital and which separates the hospital work of the GP from the consultant is diametrically opposed to the principle of providing the best standard of medical care for the community.
I approve of that statement.
The Government's policy divides the GP from the consultant. It takes people out of their locality and sends them to another. The roads between the hospitals are far short of the standards that one might expect. People needing immediate care will have to travel long distances. That is serious. It affects Ballymena in my constituency.
Local people raise vast amounts of money for their hospitals. They pay for the installation of certain instruments in order to make their hospital more efficient. The cardiac unit in the Waveney hospital was provided by the townspeople of Ballymena. The Government did not pay for it, They did not give a penny towards its cost. One doctor, who is now dead, gave his life to the raising of funds. The business community and ordinary shop-floor workers worked hard. They raised money so that Ballymena could have a cardiac unit at that hospital. However, now that it has been paid for by those people, it is to be removed by the diktat of the health board. That board is under the Minister's control. It will be taken to Antrim. I have nothing against the constituents of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). I represent them in another capacity. However, injustice has been done. I do not want to set one community against another, although the Government are working in that direction.
Something is going to be done in Enniskillen. The people of Omagh do not worry about what is happening in Enniskillen. They wish them to have a good hospital service. However, those people do not think that they should be left out. Antrim has its problems. The people need a proper hospital service. However, it is not right to run down the Waveney and Route hospitals in Ballymena and the Moyle hospital in Larne.
What right does the Minister have to lay his hands on something that does not belong to him? It has been paid for by certain people to fulfil a certain function. Why has the Minister launched himself on such a course? People are insensed at that action.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) mentioned textiles. That is a serious problem. Textiles cannot be divorced from the United Kingdom as a whole. The United Kingdom is suffering from a recession. However, I am almost in complete agreement with the Opposition tonight. Northern Ireland is not economically capable of withstanding an icy cold shower. Our economy is not healthy. We cannot survive the cuts. We will not survive. There have been staggering redundancies during the past few weeks. If the Minister worked as hard as a supernatural being, he would still not catch up

with those redundancies. It is all very well to announce that 2,500 jobs may result in four or five years' time. I am glad to hear of every job, but what are the redundancies next month and the one after?
In my constituency, the Ballymoney Manufacturing Company was involved in an enlargement programme about 12 months ago. It suddenly sent for its Member of Parliament and informed the Minister that it was closing, with the loss of 240 or more jobs.
The textile industry in Northern Ireland formed 30 per cent. of the entire industry in the United Kingdom. It is now melting away like snow. Mr. Haferkamp, one of the Commissioners, was over in Carrickfergus, as the Minister knows. All that we could show was an almost empty factory. When that factory was within the bounds of the constituency of the hon. Member for Antrim. South, it employed 1,000 to 1,500 people and was a thriving concern. That is the story all over the Province. How does the Minister see the future of the textile industry? If we do not do something now, when the recession is over—and I hope that that will come about—we shall have no industry left. The textile industry in Northern Ireland should have been rationalised long ago. An attempt should have been made to make it viable. if a lot smaller. It now appears that it will shut down altogether.
The clothing industry also cannot compete. Shirts can be imported for practically nothing. I learnt the other day from a clothier that handkerchiefs are imported for 10p a dozen. The cost of making them in this country would exceed l0p, leaving aside the cost of the material. The clothing industry in Northern Ireland is having a bad time, and clothiers feel that action should be taken. What action are the Government proposing? We need rationalisation and plans for a viable clothing and textile industry.

Mr. John: Perhaps the Minister will also deal with the American subsidy in the price of oil. A highly developed country is putting itself in the same position as underdeveloped countries. It is cut-throat competition.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Those of us with textile interests in our constituencies are worried about COMECON and other competition, and a highly developed country


is now casting a shadow over the industry. If that continues, our industry will not be able to compete and will go to the wall. The steps taken are too little and too late.
I wish to deal with a couple of other matters concerning my constituency. One offshore island in Northern Ireland has a fair population—Rathlin island. At the turn of the century its population was 1,000. It is now a little over 100. It is imperative that it be treated as a special case. One essential to the survival of the island is its accessibility. There is the problem of its harbour and also the harbour at Ballycastle.
Rathlin has been neglected for many years. I know that proposals have been made and are under consideration. I have accompanied Ministers of both Labour and Conservative Administrations on visits to the island. There was a report in the newspapers of terrifying circumstances in which 12 islanders returning from a wedding ceremony in Ballycastle were almost swept away by a wave. It was only by an act of God that they were not drowned. They lost all their possessions. Only a miracle saved them. A tragedy occurred there some years ago. These incidents are happening continually. Some action must be taken in Ballycastle and on the island itself. I should like the Minister to explain what has happened to the proposals.
I turn now to the beautiful little seaside resort of Portballintrae—

Mr. Michael McGuire: I know a little about Rathlin, although not as much as the hon. Gentleman, who puts up a stout case. Would the hon. Gentleman confirm—it was a narrow judgment many years ago—that if Rathlin had been brought within the Scottish mainland, as it wished and, I believe, still so wishes, although everyone realises that it cannot happen, it would have received preferential treatment under the Scottish Office for many essential matters? I refer particularly to the harbour facilities at Bally-castle.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The only difficulty about the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that Ballycastle would not have come under the Highlands and Islands scheme. Rathlin would have come within it. The

problem is accessibility both to Rathlin and from Rathlin and Ballycastle. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the islanders. They do not want to be part of Scotland. They want to remain part of Northern Ireland.

Mr. McGuire: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a recent radio programme which stated that the islanders would prefer to be administered by the best agency to help them. They felt that this would be the Highlands and Islands scheme.

Mr. Fitt: There are two people on the island who vote for the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to correct that figure. I believe that 10 people voted for me at the last election. The people of the island should be receiving the same kind of help as would be provided under the Highlands and Islands scheme. That was never taken into consideration by the old Stormont Government or Governments at Westminster. Those people need to be treated preferentially.
I should like the Minister to visit Portballintrae and to see the erosion of the coastline that has occurred. The last storm swept almost to the roadway. The whole face of the bank running down to the sea is slowly wearing away. Coleraine council points out that serious erosion has taken place particularly on the west side of the bay where the roadway was not threatened. Work carried out by the Department of Agriculture has been damaged by recent storms. It would appear that the lower armouring has been eroded. The work at the east side, which was done by the Department of the Environment, was intended to support the roadway at this point. It appears that this also has now been eroded and the road is a danger.
This is a serious matter. I was in Portballintrae the other day and I looked at the area. The Minister should go there and see how this problem affects the whole outlook of that seaside resort. I press the urgency of this matter upon him.
What progress is the Minister making to see that the rights of the Northern Ireland fishermen are protected under what I call obnoxious EEC legislation?


I cannot understand why boats from EEC countries can come in and take advantage of our waters while our fishermen work at a grave disadvantage. I ask the Minister whether he has taken this point on board.
What about inshore fishing this year? Will it be banned completely again? Will the fishermen not be allowed to fish as they have done for generations? I ask the Minister to tell us what is happening about this. The Ministers in the Republic of Ireland act like modern-day Nelsons —more than that, they close both eyes. The fishermen of the Republic are supposed to operate under the same EEC laws as our fishermen, but it seems that our officials are more interested than the officials of the Republic in strictly operating the law. The Minister should also be like Nelson at times. We expect him to do his duty to Ulstermen and not to others. I leave that salutary exhortation with him.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: At the outset I should like to express my gratitude and, I am sure, that of other hon. Members from Northern Ireland for the very helpful explanatory memorandum that has been given to us by the Northern Ireland Office. There have been many occasions in the past when we have not been so well informed on every facet of the appropriation order as we have been tonight.
I am sure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would like to find at the constitutional conference now taking place within the confines of Stormont such unanimity as he will probably find here tonight. I understand from rumours emanating from that conclave that the participants have not been as nearly unanimous as had been hoped.
I am sure that Ministers will accept that not only in this part of the United Kingdom but in Northern Ireland every facet of life has been affected by the new Tory Government's doctrinaire and monetaristic—if there is such a word—approach to economic problems in Northern Ireland. I have just invented that word.
There is no doubt that the effects of the doctrinaire approach of this Government have been an absolute disaster

for Northern Ireland. Children's school meals, the transport of children to school, the cost of housing, the deterioration in the number of jobs and the diminution of the number of home helps —all the things that made life bearable for the people of Northern Ireland—have been disastrously affected by the approach of this Government.
I am certain that Northern Ireland Members from all political parties will be at one tonight in asking for special treatment for that part of the United Kingdom—

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I heard the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) claim that the economic facts of life are an invention of the Tory Government. If he is about to produce demands for increased expenditure, perhaps he will tell us how it is to be funded.

Mr. Fitt: I did not say that the economic facts of life were an invention of the Tory Government, but I do say that their approach to solving the problem is completely different from that which would have been undertaken by a Labour Government. The economic facts of life are a reality. The way of solving the problem is the issue that divides the two sides of the House.
Page 4 of the explanatory memorandum refers to Class II, Vote 3—General Support for Industry. I raise this question once again, and I make no apology for doing so because of the important issue of employment in my constituency.
The previous Government and this Government are at one in believing in massive financial support for the De Lorean factory in West Belfast. One of the main reasons why the previous Government gave such massive financial backing to that industrial undertaking was the appalling unemployment in the area immediately surrounding it. This Government appeared to take the same view.
The previous Government had hoped that De Lorean would give industrial training to West Belfast people who had been unemployed, through no fault of their own, for five, six, seven, and even 10 years. They hoped that such people would be given the requisite skills through training and retraining so that they could take up employment in De Lorean.
Now it would appear that this Government are taking a doctrinaire approach to this issue—an employers' approach. They are not concerned with the length of unemployment. They refuse to act as social workers. They want the best qualified employees to take up employment in this industry.
What is happening at present? Other industries in West Belfast are closing down. I deeply regret these closures and the resulting redundancies. They mean that skilled personnel in these industries will receive their redundancy payments and then take up employment in De Lorean, which will negate the whole purpose of the Government's massive financial backing for that industry. It means that those in West Belfast who have been out of work for six, seven and eight years will be unemployed for nine, 10, or 11 years. Perhaps they will never get another job in their working lives.
I am not making the point that Catholics or people from West Belfast should be specifically employed in this industry, but I appeal to the Minister to do all that he can for them. I recognise the appalling hardship under which people have to live in that area. I naturally ask for preference to be given to those who have suffered from unemployment for so long.

Mr. James Molyneaux: As the De Lorean factory is situated not in West Belfast but in South Antrim, and as the two nearest concentrations of population—namely Seymour Hill and Twinbrook, the one Unionist and the other staunchly Republican—are also in South Antrim, can the hon. Gentleman give any valid reason why his constituents from West Belfast should be given priority over my constituents in South Antrim?

Mr. Fitt: That is a valid question. The answer is that the factory was sited on the fringes of West Belfast. I hesitate to designate an area Loyalist or Republican. I only wish that we could get away from those designations.
Two significant developments are taking place on the outskirts of West Belfast. One is industrial and one is residential. Poleglass is the residential development. The other is industrial. I remember the extreme Unionist to which, I am sorry

to say, the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) has allied himself. He has taken part in public demonstrations objecting to the building of houses. He said that the estate would provide for the housing of Catholics from West Belfast. The extreme Loyalists have been marching again. Deputation after deputation went to this and previous Governments demanding and threatening that the De Lorean factory should not be placed geographically where it is now and that the entrance should be in the Loyalist rather than the Republican area. We can see that in the building of the Poleglass housing estate and in the siting of the factory there are political influences at work.
I had hoped that the Poleglass estate would house all people, regardless of their political persuasion. However, I should not go so far as to say that that should be the criterion laid down for the De Lorean factory. It is well accepted and understood that the majority of the unemployed in West Belfast—which is just a few hundred yards down the road—are mainly of the Roman Catholic persuasion. Those people should be given an opportunity to take employment there, not because they are Catholics but because they have been so long unemployed. I make that appeal to the Minister.
At the bottom of page 4 of the memorandum reference is made to the local enterprise development unit. There are disquieting rumours going around now in Northern Ireland to the effect that political opposition is now building up to LEDU. Political opinions have been expressed—the Minister will not be unaware of them—that LEDU should be phased out. I take a contrary view. The local enterprise development unit has performed a worthwhile function. Indeed in an area such as West Belfast, in Townsend Street, it has been helpful in attracting industry. I hope that it will be given every encouragement and opportunity to remain in existence, as those employed by LEDU have performed a worthwhile task.
I now proceed to Sub-head B1 —assistance to the aircraft industry. I am absolutely delighted to see that further Government assistance is forthcoming to Short Bros. and Harland to reach an agreement with the Learavia Corporation to engage in further small


aircraft production. I am quite certain that everyone in Northern Ireland, irrespective of the religious or political affiliation of those people who are employed in Short Bros. and. Harland, will benefit from this further injection of public money, which will ensure that Short Bros. and Harland will be given a further lease of life.
I think there will be complete and absolute unanimity—we have seen it expressed here tonight by two inveterate political opponents, the hon. Members for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), in relation to the gas industry. I can only concur in everything that they have said, and I ask the Minister, even at this very late hour —I ask it without any great degree of hope—to look again at what the cost may be of closing down the gas industry in Northern Ireland as opposed to keeping it open.
The Minister said to an audience in Northern Ireland quite recently that because Northern Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom it was not the birthright of the people of Northern Ireland to have the same energy costs for heating. This created a good deal of criticism at the time and the Minister very generously, I think, apologised and said that his remarks had been taken out of context. But I think we on the Floor of the House are realistic enough to accept that the Minister meant what he said. He meant that because Northern Ireland was on the island of Ireland and was separated by a sea barrier, the cost of providing gas to that part of the United Kingdom would be prohibitive, and just because Northern Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom in a constitutional sense it could not demand the same cost for electricity, gas or other forms of energy. That is what he said.
Yesterday morning, in a Committee upstairs, I said to the Minister's colleague the Under-Secretary of State "That is all right". But his colleague said, in relation to a statement last week in Northern Ireland, that they had to increase rents in Northern Ireland to ensure that they were brought up to the level of rents in other parts of the United Kingdom. They cannot have it both ways. There is no question but that the Minister said that it was the endeavour of this Government to bring

the level of rents in Northern Ireland up to that which we have in other parts of the United Kingdom, and I think he mentioned that rents in Northern Ireland were £1 less than in other parts of the United Kingdom.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Philip Goodhart): I did not say yesterday morning, and I do not say now, that it is our intention swiftly to close the gap between rents in Northern Ireland and rents in Great Britain. In fact, the rent increase that has been announced in Northern Ireland is substantially smaller than the rent guidelines that have been announced for Great Britain; and, as the hon. Member acknowledged, the differential is £1; rents in Northern Ireland are £1 less than those in Great Britain.

Mr. Fitt: If hon. Members listened intently to the interjection of the Minister they will have noticed the word "swiftly"—it is not the Government's intention swiftly to increase rents. But the intention is to increase rents, and I am trying to draw to the attention of the House tonight that on the one hand the Minister in charge of commerce in Northern Ireland told the people of Northern Ireland that it was not their birthright to pay the same for energy for heating and another Minister said that it was the intention to bring the rents up.
As the ex-leader of the SDLP, I say to the hon. Member for Antrim, North that many people in Northern Ireland are being filled with false hope that the EEC is the answer to Northern Ireland's problems. That is totally untrue. The EEC is not the answer to Northern Ireland's problems. Irrespective of promises that may be made to Northern Ireland elected representatives to the European Parliament that Northern Ireland is to be treated as a special region, it is this House that determines the level of grants that come from the EEC. The EEC cannot give preferential treatment to Northern Ireland without the sanction of this House on agricultural, regional or social matters. It is wrong for anyone to say that the EEC may be able to take precedence over the House of Commons and to give preferential treatment to Northern Ireland.
The EEC be prepared to bear 40 per cent. of the cost of the gas pipeline,


but only if the Minister and the House say "Yes". From what I understand the Minister has already said "No". I ask the Minister not to say "No" lightly. When he has taken into account all the factors and all the costs involved in the premature closure of the gas industry, he might want to think again and ask for the 40 per cent. from Europe.
Let no one, for the sake of his own political aggrandisement, of whatever political party he may be, say that the people in Strasbourg or Brussels tell the Government what to do, because that is not true. The Government will find almost total unanimity amongst all the elected representatives from Northern Ireland that they should reconsider the cost of closing down the gas industry to see whether it is more expensive than keeping it going.
I come to page 7, Vote V on housing subsidies. It will come as no surprise to the Minister, after the debate yesterday in Committee, to hear that I am once again voicing opposition to the manner in which the announcement was made last week—without any consultation —that Housing Executive rents would be increased. Yesterday morning a bombshell was dropped in Committee by the Minister, when he told us that the rents of private sector dwellings were to be increased by 27 per cent. I used the word "arrogant", and I make no apology for doing so.
I was disappointed that not all the Northern Ireland Members were in attendance yesterday. Had they been present, there might have been a majority in favour of rejection of the rent increases and all the other facts of the order. I understand that the hon. Member for Antrim, North was attending a funeral, and I apologise sincerely if he felt that we were casting a reflection on him for not attending.
I do not exonerate the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire), who should be here tomorrow for the debate on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. I make the confident prediction that he will be here tomorrow for the Frank Maguire Bill. I should like to introduce a manuscript amendment to that Bill. The hon. Gentleman will be here tomorrow, but he is not unduly concerned about a 27 per cent. increase in rents. He is not

unduly concerned about increases in school meals charges and transport, but he will be here tomorrow. If he is not, I shall hesitate to make any further predictions.
I would have hoped that other hon. Members would be present yesterday. I am not certain of the procedures tonight, as I was not certain of them yesterday morning. If I vote against the order, I shall do so on the rent issue.
Under the heading of "Rent Allowances", the explanatory memorandum to the order states that
A reduction of £0·7 million in the provision required arises from a lower take-up rate than anticipated.
What does that mean, in language that we can all understand in Northern Ireland? It means that more people were entitled to claim rent allowance than had claimed it. People do not forget to claim rent allowance if they know that they are entitled to it, and know how to claim it. There must have been a foul-up somewhere. People cannot have been advised to take up rent allowance and they have, therefore, failed to do so.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There may have been some misunderstanding, or I may have misheard the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he indicated that he was contemplating voting against the order—that is to say, voting against £863 million for Northern Ireland. Perhaps that is not so.

Mr. Fitt: Northern Ireland is lull of eccentrics, and the right hon. Gentleman is not least amongst them. If I vote against the order tonight I shall do so on the issue of rent increases.
As I said yesterday morning in Committee, Northern Ireland does not have local authorities that are concerned with the raising or the lowering of rents. It has a Northern Ireland Housing Executive and a Minister for the Environment, who decide whether or not to increase rents in the private sector. We do not have local authorities—whether Conservative-, Unionist-, Labour- or SDLP- controlled—that can say "Yes" or "No" to an increase in rents. We have to rely on the good will of the Minister.
I have not seen very much good will from any Minister since the Conservative Government took office last May. The


Minister made a speech in Northern Ireland last week announcing that rents would be increased by £1·60. He did not consult the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Yesterday afternoon we all almost had heart attacks when he said that there would be a 27 per cent. increase. He did not give the reasons. When he announced the increase of rents to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive he said that the Government fund the Executive. We keep it going by financial subvention. The Minister seems to think that he is entitled to wake up one morning—perhaps with a hangover —and increase rents. He cannot do that in the private rented sector. Private landlords are not funded by taxpayers' money. The Minister takes it upon himself to declare "I am going to increase rents by 27 per cent."

Mr. Goodhart: Under the announcement yesterday, no landlord is forced to increase the rent. 'The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has accused me of discourtesy by making the announcement in Committee. When does he think that I should have made the announcement? If I had made it before attending the Committee, he would have accused me of pre-empting discussion. If I had made it after the Committee had sat, he would have accused me of cowardice.

Mr. Fitt: The Minister wants to have it every way.
There are now 12 Northern Ireland representatives in this place. The electors send us here in the belief that we shall in some way be able to influence events. That is why they vote. That is why all electors vote and that is why all hon. Members are here. The electors believe that their Members will be able to voice their opinions and speak on their behalf. There are many people in my constituency who live in the private rented sector. There are many in that position in the constituencies of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. However, it seems that we cannot influence anything. The Minister makes his announcement and it is a fait accompli. There is nothing that we can do. It is only right if our constituents ask "What is the use of voting to send a candidate to Westminster if he is useless when he gets there?"

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Or if he is not there.

Mr. Fitt: Indeed. At least, we were present in Committee yesterday morning.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North has spoken about transport costs and school meals. Transport costs bear particularly heavily on those in rural areas, while the increased price of school meals affects parents in all areas. The increased price of school meals and the reduction of transport, or the increased cost of transport, will have a great effect on many families. I know that it will be said that the State will pay if a person is receiving supplementary benefit or is in receipt of family income supplement. However, there will be others who are marginally above the poverty line. Their income may exceed it by £1 or 75p. They will not be entitled to any State benefits. They are the people who will suffer.
There is no need for me to tell the Minister at length what a disastrous effect the Government's policy on public expenditure cuts has had on health and personal services. In the past few months, scores of people have come to my home or telephoned to tell me that the home-help service has been cut.
The home help that used to be provided for two or three hours a day has now been abolished. The Government have been particularly ruthless in the way they have withdrawn home help from old people, invalids and the disabled. One does not need home help if one is in possession of one's faculties.
The reduction in that service has been drastic. I am sure that other hon. Members from the Province have experienced the sort of complaints about that reduction that I have had. No matter how many thousands of pounds the reduction in the home-help service may save in a year, the absence of that service is causing great hardship among those who formerly relied upon it.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North spoke about the great emotional allegiance of the local people to the Waveney hospital in Ballymena and how that hospital is either to go out of existence or have its facilities shifted elsewhere. Much more important—though I understand the emotional allegiance to Waveney—is the heart unit at the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast. That unit is renowned all over the world.
Professor Frank Partridge, who is in charge of that unit, has given loyal service to his country in peace and war and is one of the most eminent heart specialists in the world. He has told me that because of Government cutbacks there is no more money for pacemakers in his unit. There are people who cannot live without a pacemaking machine inserted into their heart's and if such machines are not available people will die. The only conclusion we can come to is that the public expenditure cuts will mean that people will die. Pacemaking machines mean that people can live.
I believe that it is an awful slur on this Government that such a renowned institution, staffed by people of eminence, has to appeal for subscriptions to the people of Northern Ireland in order to keep going. I have no doubt that subscriptions will be forthcomings because this situation transcends political and religious boundaries. The people of the Province will rally to the aid of the Royal Victoria hospital. They will ensure that the heart unit carries on.
Only yesterday morning, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) was taken ill with a heart complaint. I sincerely trust that he is recovering, and I am sure that I carry the good wishes of the House to him when I express those sentiments. None of us can be sure, least of all the Ministers for Northern Ireland, that we will not find ourselves in ward 4 or ward 5 of the Royal Victoria hospital. I hope that Ministers never need to go there on other than on a visit. Many people in Northern Ireland are affronted because the Goverment's doctrinaire approach to monetary problems and to public expenditure could mean that a revered institution such as that heart unit may have to go out of existence.
Today I received several answers to questions which I tabled. I am happy to believe that the right hon. Member for Down, South will support me. I asked whether the Secretary of State was satisfied with the criteria which must be met to qualify for mobility and attendance allowances. I was given the monosyllabic answer "Yes". I am not satisfied with that. More people are refused attendance allowance than receive it. I have yet to be

made aware of the circumstances which qualify a person for receipt of that benefit.
I also asked how many people in Northern Ireland with only one leg were in receipt of mobility allowance. Northern Ireland is a small place. One would imagine that a large Department could tell me how many people who have lost a leg, by whatever means, are in receipt of mobility allowance. I asked how many people with only one leg had been refused mobility allowance in the years 1977, 1978 and 1979. I thought that that would be relatively easy to answer. However, I was told today:
This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
All I can say is that Ministers in Stormont could have answered that question in five minutes. The cost of answering is not disproportionate. The answer to such questions is relevant to the attitudes that I and other hon. Members have on the questions of mobility and attendance allowances. It would not cost much to find out how many people have lost a leg or what criteria applies to attendance allowance. Such answers as I have received build up opposition to direct rule. They make Northern Ireland Members stand back and ask "Who do these people think they are to give us such answers?"
We have received a welcome explanatory memorandum, but several issues have been raised and I hope that the Minister will reply to them by letter if he cannot reply this evening. My remarks are not made in a spirit of abject criticism. They are intended to illustrate the feelings of my constituents who sent me to this House to put those feelings before the Government.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Giles Shaw): For the convenience of the House, I shall intervene to reply to those matters which fall within my responsibility. My colleagues will deal with other matters.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), who opened the debate, mentioned a number of issues which are my responsibility. He asked about the closure of the agricultural trust. I assure him that the decision was not taken lightly or


wantonly. It was taken in relation to the £400,000 a year of public funds involved and because most activities of the trust could and should be continued by other bodies available to farming interests in Northern Ireland.
I refer to the following main activities. The first is the development of research into agricultural techniques and so on. This can be handled within the Department of Agriculture's own research facility. The second is the help which the trust has given to agricultural producers and food producers in exhibitions. This is largely the work of the Food Export Council, under which the trust has frequently operated, and this will continue to be the main source of support for exhibitions within and outside the United Kingdom.
The third matter is in relation to the activities that the trust has undertaken within Northern Ireland itself. For marketing purposes, increased terms of reference are now being applied to the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has recently changed the terms of reference of that body to give it a more forceful remit in the area of marketing. The council's application within Northern Ireland will reflect that new remit and, therefore, the marketing activity undertaken by the trust will be carried on by that body. So it was my judgment that for these reasons, as well as for the need to reduce public expenditure, the closure of the trust would not seriously undermine the services which have bean provided and that recipients of the services in Northern Ireland could continue to enjoy the services from other sources.
The hon. Gentleman went on to discuss the question of jobs and job creation. This has been a matter of great concern to other hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that we had talked continually about jobs in prospect and had talked, perhaps rather glibly, about job creation but had not recognised that there was a continual drain of job losses going on week by week. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no pie-in-the-sky view in the Department of Commerce or, indeed, within the development agencies concerned with job creation. We recognise that many do not come easily to net

and to produce jobs in the specific numbers which we set out to achieve initially.
I do not accept that there could be a shortfall as high as 50 per cent. In our experience, it is nearer 25 per cent. of the jobs which it has set out to achieve in the past few years and actually achieved. I take the point that we are talking about jobs which will come to their full fruition in several years' time. I make no apology for this, because in the particular situation in which Northern Ireland finds itself, with the need to regenerate its industrial base at the same time as it seeks to reduce the appallingly high level of unemployment, we have to keep growing seed corn for the future and building new industries. This takes time.
The hon. Gentleman raised the specific question of how the position was to date. In just over two months of 1980, we have created some 3,000 jobs against the total figure for the 12 months last year of 4,600 and for the year before of some 5,800. I cannot pretend that this is a rate of job creation which will be maintained, though every effort will be made to do so. But I think it indicates that, despite the very real economic, political and security difficulties in which the Province finds itself, and, indeed, has found itself for far too long, we can still achieve a commendable record in job creation.
The hon. Gentleman then asked about the question of outside interests playing their part in any future development of investment institutions. Other hon. Members have asked when the report will be produced. My hon. Friend the Minister of State assured the House in opening the debate that the Government's decisions on the report would be published before Easter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have accepted in the various substantial discussions we have held with our officials and others that there must be an important role for outside interests to influence the strategy for industrial development.
In our meeting yesterday with NIC/ ICTU, in which the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and myself participated, it was clear to me that its anxiety was to ensure that the momentum and teamwork required to achieve a high rate of industrial development should be maintained. That was at the heart of its anxiety about any changes that we may


seek to make. I assure the House that the matter of teamwork, which involves the bringing together of outside influences, is an important part of the considerations which we have taken and will play a constructive part in our proposals.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Learavia development and its relationship with the Industrial Development Advisory Committee. The actual Votes that we are discussing under the appropriation order deal fundamentally with the money spent by the Department of Commerce in maintaining the option in the examination of the Learavia case rather than in the industrial development case itself. The option expenditure is not really within the same competence as the industrial development case in relation to the work of the Industrial Development Advisory Committee.
Although in the matter of the negotiations the Department was the lead agency, in the question of the development project itself—the grant-aided assistance and the development of the second phase of production which will involve the building of the extended hangars and facilities at Aldergrove—the IDAC will be fully consulted on the matter. It has been informed and involved in the decisions that have been taken, and it has approved them when required. Its main role is still to come in the detailed application of the industrial development case for the second phase of the development.
The hon. Gentleman referred to shipbuilding. I do not think that there can be any matter that comes before the House and for which I have to stand at this Box which is of greater anguish to me and, I suspect, to most hon. Members than the future of Harland and Wolff. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are still in the course of preparing the thorough review that we undertook to complete by the end of this month. Regrettably, one of my senior officials was taken severely ill recently, and that has caused a slight problem. I assure the House that the review will be thoroughly and fully prepared. Based upon that review will be the Government's decision as to the future of the yard and the future investment, if any, that it should be given.
The hon. Gentleman went further than that, and he pressed me on three quite

separate matters. The first was in connection with the steelworks, and he said, quite rightly, that under the present building programme the steel fabrication section will be the first to suffer. In relation to that, he asked whether some speculative building work could be undertaken. I have been made very strongly aware by the board—I attended a board meeting 10 days ago—of its feelings on the matter. It is for us to consider. I would be unfair to the House if I did not say that, in my judgment, it is of much greater importance that we should seek to develop the future for Harland and Wolff in the correct manner—namely, in the winning competitively of orders for ships.
There are orders available in the market to be won. There are significant tenders from the yard in pursuit of those orders. It is to that end that I look for an indication that the yard could have, and should have, a future. I think that the hon. Gentleman and, I suspect, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) will recognise that it is the acquisition of orders for ships that is fundamental—whatever palliative might be suggested—to the short-term usage of a part of the major enterprise at Harland and Wolff.

Mr. John: Does the Minister accept that when a skilled work force has suffered the bitter experience of being dispersed it is difficult to attract it back? Will he, therefore, consider that such "palliatives" are necessary in order to maintain a skilled work force? If the work force is not kept together, the yard will become less viable; workers cannot be attracted to it. If orders arrive after a gap of six or nine months, the necessary men will not be there to carry them out.

Mr. Shaw: I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. The skills involved in steel fabrication may be lost for ever if the yard is closed as the result of a shortage. I am not without hope that the pressure and highly competitive chase for tenders and orders will be realised before any decision is taken about the development of ships or portions of ships.
We are in a desperate situation if an enterprise of that scale finds itself having to produce ideas to build ships or portions of ships speculatively. Other shipbuilders acquire orders in the open


market place. We must ensure that the conditions and terms of tendering used by Harland are as competitive as those used in Europe and the United Kingdom. That can now be done. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not press me too far on that point.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd referred also to the possibility of gaining Royal Fleet Auxiliary orders. I confirm that Harland is on the tendering list for such naval vessels. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not on the tendering list for warships. Reference has been made also to man-made fibres, the textile industry and its relation to the EEC. That issue requires a fair and full explanation. It is a matter of deep regret that such a new industry, which has been developed over a period of 20 years by six major international companies and has a work force of about 7,000, should be undermined so quickly. Indeed, at least 1,000 jobs have been lost.
When one considers names such as Courtaulds. Dupont, Monsanto. Enkalon, ICI and Hoechst, one realises that we are not dealing with small companies that are fighting difficult trading conditions. They are major companies. Such companies are well capable of sustaining enterprises in difficult trading conditions. The problem cannot be solved in a short period of time. The Government were forced to consider this issue very seriously.
Of the United Kingdom's fibre industry, 30 per cent. is located in the Province. We took the lead. We believed that the penetration of cheap feedstocks from the United States was the fundamental cause of the decline in the man-made fibre market. That was not the only reason. Man-made fibre producers would agree that the ability to generate more new plant and the contraction of the market were constituent reasons. Nevertheless, penetration by the United States acted as the trigger. It caused a sudden and major downturn in their fortunes.
Two possibilities were open to the Government—first, to act unilaterally under article 16 of GATT and impose our own import restrictions. Those restrictions would be temporary. A member State could act in that way for only six weeks without review by the Commission. The second possibility was that the United Kingdom Government, as a member, could seek to get the Community to

act collectively against imports of United States fibre. In the end, as the House well knows, the United Kingdom Government persuaded the EEC to act, against considerable resistance. Was that the better way of proceeding?
Had we proceeded unilaterally, not only would we have had only temporary cover for import penetration; we could not have prevented the import from other European countries of American manmade fibre. It could have come in by the back door, however skilfully we sought to bolt the front door. It was only by Community action at a Community level that we could sustain long-term protection against that import penetration. However, the levels are far from satisfactory. They are based only on 1978–79 figures and not a longer period.
Producers, hon. Members and Members of the European Parliament from Northern Ireland collectively brought pressure to bear on the Community to act. It was a remarkably united effort. Having got the Community to act, I believe that the United Kingdom Government are in the best possible position. In addition to the quotas set we have the right to review them after a time, and to make a further application to the Community if the level of protection is shown to be unsatisfactory.
The longer-term future of textiles remains extremely difficult. The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) raised the question of the other elements in the textile industry when he referred to what he called the disastrous future for the textile and clothing industry.
I have some modest personal experience of textiles, as I represent a Yorkshire textile constituency, The textiles industry is extremely flexible and resilient. Early tomorrow morning I shall be journeying to Londonderry, to the opening of a shirt factory. The Carrington Viyella group has brought expansion to the Province. A further £5 million will be invested in a factory in Lisnaskea, in the expansion recently announced by Tootal. Several other shirt companies, including Peter England and Burlington, have announced improvements and capital expansions recently.
When I attended the clothing industry exhibition at Olympia, firm orders, worth £1·7 million, were taken from the 18


Northern Ireland companies exhibiting there and further orders were in negotiation to the value of £3·5 million. Eighteen Northern Ireland firms in the clothing industry can be seen to be fighting the buffeting referred to by the hon. Member for Down, North. They are succeeding, against severe competition, in increasing their market share and penetration. If the product is right and the will is there, I believe that the Northern Ireland textile industry can look forward to a better future, even in these difficult conditions.

Mr. Kilfedder: In view of the hon. Gentleman's experience in representing a Yorkshire constituency, does he agree that the example that I gave of a suit from Eastern Europe being sold by wholesalers to retailers at £9.75 means the total destruction of the clothing industry, unless the Government do something to save those jobs? In Northern Ireland it costs an extraordinary amount of money to create just one new job. The Government should save the industry. If it goes, it cannot be brought back to life, when these suits and other textiles are no longer imported at that price.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, but he and textile manufacturers' organisations will also be aware that the anti-dumping legislation is clear and is available to be used. If information can be laid to the Department of Trade that provides the correct cost of manufacture and landed cost in the United Kingdom, action can be taken under the dumping regulations. I find myself wearing the textile protection industry tie this evening as an earnest of my interest in these matters.
The hon. Member for Down, North also raised the question of support for fishing, and particularly for fishing boat improvements. I remind him that there are schemes available for the improvement of fishing boats and for engine development. In this year we have concentrated on boat replacement rather than other ancillary works on fishing boats to which he referred. Those grants are available. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to press the case that he has in mind. Although the sums available for the current year have been used, it is possible That the development that he seeks for

his constituents could be made available shortly if he cared to write to me. We have been concentrating on boat replacement rather than other structural replacements for boats this year.
The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) and others raised the question of the gas industry and the decision in relation to the gas pipeline. I wish to distinguish between the decision on the gas pipeline and the decision on closure of individual gas companies. I know that the hon. Member for Armagh recognises this point. Although the Government have taken a firm decision not to implement the construction of a gas pipeline, we have not said to the individual undertakings in the Province that on no account should they continue to provide the gas service to which their consumers have been accustomed for many years. As the hon. Gentleman knows, two concerns are continuing to operate. One concern is changing from a town gas supply to a bottle gas supply.
The hon. Gentleman's major and, rightly, most important objection is that the Government have reached a wrong decision based on wrong information and that this view is shared on both sides of the House. In relation to the European Community grant we are, and have been, well aware that grants up to the level of 40 per cent. could be available for the capital cost of a viable project. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, any member State seeking to apply for such grant must be satisfied that the project is viable. The test that we applied was whether or not the project for the gas pipeline construction—I refer only to that —was viable.
We did not only rely on the British Gas Corporation study that was published. The hon. Gentleman has received a copy. We also undertook, within Departments of the Civil Service, a joint study group initiated by the previous Administration and involving the Department of Industry, the Department of Energy, the Central Policy Review Staff, the Treasury and the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection under the chairmanship of the Northern Ireland Office. It was the widest-ranging internal study that could have been brought about by any Government on a matter of this kind. The study report that was available


to the previous Administration and, indeed, to ourselves was equally conclusive on the matter of viability. It could not have been shown to be a sensible use of financing to provide a gas pipeline to the Province with gas at a price per therm that would have resulted in a viable operation.
In addition, we have updated as best we can the calculations used at that time in relation to United Kingdom gas prices as charged by the British Gas Coropration and referred them also to the problem of landed gas price within the Province. It is still our clear conviction that the proposition for the gas pipeline would not be viable at this date.
It is not just a matter of the capital cost; it is, as I think hon. Members understand, a question of the maintenance of the institutions while the gas pipeline and its attendant new grid are established within the Province. There is no way in which European funds can be made available for what might be called a subsidy, and certainly not a subsidy for a considerable number of years. We then come to the next problem in this saga. Supposing gas should be found in commercial quantities, should not the existing institutions—especially in the city of Belfast, which has still not taken a decision—be held intact?
I have told the House on a previous occasion, when we discussed mineral exploration, that the chances of hydrocarbon development within the Province appeared to us and to our geologist advisers to be extremely slight. There are certain explorations in hand at present. A major American oil company explored boreholes in Fermanagh. That company has now completed its work and has left, satisfied that no commercial quantity of oil exists there. But there are one or two prospectors, and, as the order at the time made clear, we encourage prospecting within the Province, whether it be for minerals or for any other purpose, such as hydrocarbons.
However, at present there is no European system of subsidy or subvention available for exploration. Although a proposal has been made about such mineral exploration in one of the committees of the Commission, it is very unlikely that a system will be available that will include

exploration for hydrocarbons. That is not unreasonable, because the private sector the world over has been tumbling over itself to invest in hydrocarbon exploration.
So the position today is that there is no viable case for the construction of a gas pipeline. Such a viability would be a determinant in any EEC grant, and 40 per cent. is the likely rate. There is also no genuine likelihood that a significant commercial quantity of gas could be found within a short time.
The Belfast city corporation passed a resolution seeking a moratorium for two years. That was discussed with the Secretary of State and myself at a meeting this week. Two years is in no way the lifespan of this kind of development. Seven or 10 years might be nearer the mark. Therefore, such a development could not make a significant contribution. Nor, indeed, could the grid through which the gas currently flows be considered as an acceptable conduit for North Sea gas, as I am sure hon. Members understand.
There is no other decision that this Government can come to but that it is not possible to recommend to the House or to the EEC that moneys should be spent on a gas pipeline in the Province. Nor can I accept the resolution of the Belfast city corporation that a delay of two years whilst exploration takes place would be a viable undertaking.

Mr. McCusker: In view of the significance of the viability argument and the Minister's assertions that the interdepartmental report proves non-viability, quite apart from what the British Gas Corporation says, and the concern expressed by the Northern Ireland Economic Council, would the Minister be prepared to put before that council the calculations and the figures that prove non-viability?

Mr. Shaw: I have had discussions with the chairman of the council on these matters and I think that he feels that the Government's present position is one that he would probably support, but I am prepared to meet him again to discuss the matter, in the light of the comments made by the hon. Member for Armagh.
I am aware that I am detaining the House unduly on these matters but I recognise their importance. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) also raised the question of electricity. I recognise that, having taken a decision against a gas pipeline, what he and other hon. Members seek from this Government is a decision of a more progressive kind about the energy future of the Province, in particular about electricity tariffs and supply. I undertake to produce as soon as possible a full statement on the energy future of the Province, together with firm proposals on how we seek to relate electricity prices there to those in the rest of the United Kingdom. The severe increase in fuel costs is a matter of concern to every consumer in Northern Ireland.
I turn to the question of Rathlin and Ballycastle. The Department of Commerce has decided that it cannot proceed with the £3 million improvement scheme for Ballycastle harbour. It has decided that with funds being so restricted at this time it cannot spend that amount of money.
On the question of fisheries. I remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement today indicating that a sum of money would be provided for aid to the fishing industry. A total of £3 million will be provided—£1 million of which will go towards exploratory voyages in search of further distant-water fishing grounds. That will not be of direct benefit to Northern Ireland, but the £2 million allocated for other purposes will. It will provide Northern Ireland fishermen with financial aids that will help with the cost of intervention, maintain withdrawal prices, provide temporary laying-up premiums, dock, harbour and landing dues, and finance approved programmes to improve the grading, handling and sales promotion of fish.
These sums will be discussed with the Department of Agriculture, and the appropriate allocation of this sum will be available within Northern Ireland to be handled by the fish producers' organisations, after discussion and agreement with the Department.
Finally, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) raised the question of

De Lorean and employment policy. I recognise the deep conviction with which he speaks about the long-term unemployed. We have corresponded on this matter. In all honesty we cannot take this matter as far as the hon. Member would wish tonight, but I undertake to raise it again direct with Dc Lorean and see whether we can find a way in which the longer-term unemployed can be given a weighting in the assessments for job opportunities in the industry. I urge the hon. Member to recognise that the major employment phasing of that company will begin in May, and I hope that he will encourage everyone to apply for jobs in this major venture which will benefit his constituents for a considerable period.
I apologise for the time that I have taken, and if I have not answered any hon. Member's questions I urge him to write to me and I shall do so.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This debate follows yesterday's debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Throughout, the attendance at this debate has been greater than that at the debate on the corresponding examinaion of Supply for Great Britain. It is also greater than the attendance at the immediately preceding debate on hospital provision for a part of the population of London amounting to half the size of the population of the whole of Northern Ireland.
I mention this because some Ulster newspapers from time to time refer to attendances at these debates as if lack of attendance was evidence of lack of interest or seriousness in this House Those newspapers would be better about the problems of Northern Ireland. occupied in reporting these debates and the important statements that are made in the course of them than in misleading their readers about the significance of the procedures of this House.
That brings me to the place of this debate in the annual cycle of financial survey. We have once again got the cycle slightly out of gear. There are three such debates in the course of the year. It would be helpful if those debates could coincide, instead of exactly failing to coincide, with the publication of important documents which bear upon the appropriation. The most important of these are the Appropriation Accounts


themselves—admittedly for the previous year—together with the invaluable comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Yet we had the previous appropriation debate, in December of last year, just a few days before the publication of the Northern Ireland Appropriation Accounts with the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, and it has commonly been our experience that we have our summer appropriation debate just before the publication of the report of the Public Accounts Committee instead of after.
I hope that we shall be able to improve upon that record. I recognise that the interposition of a general election last year threw out of gear the arrangements which the Public Accounts Committee had, with great care, been making to assist us. I have mentioned this to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and hope that he will be able to process this material and produce the report of that Committee before we come to the next of the debates in this cycle.
Pressed though we are for time, it would be wrong not to take up some of the major criticisms or at any rate to mention some of the major criticisms of financial control which were made by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I intend to mention only three, all of which received considerable emphasis. One is the excessive size of balances retained by Departments at banks, with consequent unnecessary interest charges.The second is the legislative basis of the meat marketing employment scheme. It may be that, with the collapse of the green pound differential, that scheme will have less importance in future than it has had in recent years. Nevertheless, the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the legal basis of that scheme are extremely grave and ought not to be passed over by this House. I hope that in the written comments which are commonly provided by Ministers following these debates, that matter, amongst the others, will receive attention.
The third point is the control of costs in the three teacher training colleges. As the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) pointed out, there has been a dramatic fall in the numbers of students at all three colleges—a fall over the past 10 years in the case of Stranmillis of 27 per cent., in St. Mary's of 16

per cent. and in St. Joseph's of 23 per cent. Maybe that is one of the reasons for the severe criticism of the catering costs at those colleges and, in particular, the comment of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which this House should note, that he had great difficulty in getting his inquiries taken seriously by those to whom he addressed them at those colleges. Certainly the disparities and the implicit inefficiencies are serious matters. For a Government in search of sources of economy, they merit very careful attention.
It has been our attempt to try to use these debates as a means of considering specific topics and following them through from one debate to the next. I intend to conform to that practice by carrying forward the debate initiated last July on the relationship between the Department of the Environment and the Housing Executive in the extremely important matter of the improvement of the housing stock of the Housing Executive.
Before I come to that, however—and it is the only topic of my speech—I want to throw out one suggestion. I mentioned just now the debate yesterday on the Consolidated Fund. The House has found that it cannot use the time, however luxuriant, which is available for debating the Consolidated Fund Bill without the assistance of the Chair in compartmentalising the subjects.
I think that many hon. Members who have taken part in this debate today, where we are under pressure of time—although we had secured four hours for it—may have been wondering whether we ought not to consider in future seeking the help of the Chair in somewhat the same way so that there can be a balance between the contributions of Northern Ireland Members and the replies of Ministers, and a closer relationship between criticism and the response to criticism.
Having thrown out that suggestion, I revert to the topic of the Department of the Environment, the Housing Executive and housing improvement. What we were facing last July was a virtual breakdown of the programme of the improvement of Housing Executive houses. It was a breakdown which occurred partly as the result of the general election and the change of Government; but what it certainly did was to destroy


the existing programmes and to frustrate undertakings which hon. Members had in good faith given to their constituents throughout the Province.
I recognise that considerable progress has been made in the last six or eight months in this context, partly because the matter has been followed up in a series of meetings between my hon. Friends and myself on the one hand and the Minister and the Housing Executive on the other. I should like to record the progress and then to indicate the directions in which more is still urgently needed.
First of all we have secured the basis of all planning whatsoever: that is, an allocation of the global sum. In a letter dated 22 January, the Minister notified my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) of the sums which have now been allocated for the major programmes of new building in 1980–81 and for the programmes of maintenance and improvement. That was at any rate a start: it was the first certainty in the matter which the Housing Executive had had.
The Minister continued:
The position is therefore that the Executive is now proceeding to implement firm programmes within these allocations.
Those are the programmes which we and our constituents so urgently need in order to see where we stand and where we are going to stand a year hence.
But there was another matter of principle which had to be settled. With rising costs, and with the houses to be tackled being more and more the difficult houses, whether because of the houses themselves or because of their location, another decision had to be taken—that is to say, whether an inflexible standard of improvement was to be applied or whether there was to be a range of different standards of improvement which could be applied in appropriate cases.
On that matter, too, progress has been made, for what the Minister called in a letter of 20 December
a wider range of appropriate methods of improving the living conditions of the tenants
has now been agreed between the Department and the Housing Executive, so that we now have three classes of improvement—wind and water-proof; minimal improvements; and full improvement—which, unless I am mistaken, and

I hope I am not, are agreed in principle between the Department and the Housing Executive as appropriate for the respective circumstances.
Having got that matter clear, we had hoped that progress would be made in setting up the new programmes and getting them started in the financial year 1980–81. A press release of the Housing Executive at the end of last month stated:
The Executive is at present in the process of agreeing new standards for these cottages with the Department of the Environment.
It is that process and its apparent stickiness to which I want to draw attention.
What seems to happen is that the Housing Executive draws up programmes and proposals, but these are then picked over in detail by the Department of the Environment, despite the fact that an overall total has been agreed for the Housing Executive and that the Housing Executive has the approval in principle of appropriate respective standards for the different types of dwelling.
I will give a specific example that illustrates what my colleagues and I fear is happening. I shall take a group of three schemes in Banbridge, one of the districts in my constituency, and I shall quote the words of the regional controller. In October it was agreed to reappraise the whole programme. In a letter of 17 December, he said:
This has been done and a complete submission has been prepared and was forwarded to Stormont on 6 December 1979. We have been assured a speedy response on the whole package. As soon as we obtain the general approval we will set firm programme dates and I will then advise you on the position as it affects the dwellings listed in your letter.
Yet evidence to date is that there has been no progress in obtaining the approval of the Department of the Environment for that or similar programmes which have been put forward by the Housing Executive.
I learnt that last month from an inquiry which I made about a particular scheme, to which I received the answer in a letter from the regional controller dated 11 February:
The full proposal is still with the DOE and therefore I am unable to advise you if, in fact, this proposal has been approved. As soon as information is available on this matter I will write to you.


My hon. Friends and I find it simply impossible to understand why having such an organisation as the Housing Executive, having given that organisation a financial limit, and having discussed and agreed standards it is necessary for the Department of the Environment to go over the details case by case and house by house before these programmes can be set up and started and before we can give our constituents assurance of what will happen.
I think that the Minister was as shocked as I was by a recent instance on which I had to deal directly with him where the improvement of a single Housing Executive house to fit it for a disabled tenant—an improvement which was thoroughly considered by the Housing Executive and thoroughly vouched for by those expert in assistance for the disabled—was held up because the Department of the Environment still had to consider the detailed plans for that house before approval could be given.
This suggests that, although we have achieved something in the past six months towards getting a programme of improvement on to its feet again, there is a major stumbling block still in the way. That is the apparent complete duplication of effort which goes on between the Department and the Housing Executive. Of course, I accept that the Government are responsible: they are responsible to the House financially and in every other respect for the Housing Executive; the Housing Executive is in the last resort a creature of the Government and their agent in the matter of housing. What I cannot accept is that the Government are unable to devolve to the Housing Executive executive responsibility within the terms of reference of the financial limits which very properly they set.
I know that the Minister's sense of frustration is not far short of ours. I hope he will be able to say that we can now take the final step and have programmes which the Housing Executive can set up and carry out without this constant and frustrating reference backwards and forwards between Department and Executive.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawsbaw): Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that six hon.

Gentlemen have indicated that they wish to speak in the debate. We have 38 minutes left, and I hope that we shall have shorter speeches.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I shall take your advice Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall be as brief as possible. In order to cover the number of points that I wish to make I shall simply put up markers. If the Minister cannot answer them in his reply perhaps he will write to me at a later date.
I join with other hon. Members in thanking the Minister for the memorandum, which we have found helpful. While I am in the process of throwing bouquets, I should say that a valuable contribution to the debate was made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). My hon. Friends and I would have made many of the points that he made.
He took up the matter of the Belfast shipyard, Harland and Wolff. He slightly over-estimated the significance of the order that it had been given. I think that he said it was worth £10 million, but I believe that it is worth around £4 million. None the less, it is very much needed. The Minister will know that there were no more orders on the order book and that the work had almost been completed. The order gives a breathing space, but has no degree of permanence or security for the men employed in that section. The sobering and chilling remarks of the Minister when he replied to the hon. Member for Pontypridd will concern many people, particularly in my constituency.
I received a letter from the Minister in the latter part of last year in which he expressed concern at the position of the engine works, but he said that he found the position of the foundry grave. He indicated that closure was almost inevitable.
I wish to take up the aspect of the building of warships. In answer to the hon. Member for Pontypridd the Minister indicated that Harland and Wolff was not on the tender list for the building of warships. It received its last order for the building of a warship in 1966.
In a written answer that I received from the Ministry of Defence when I inquired why Harland and Wolff had not


been considered suitable to tender for such orders, I was informed that
its facilities, technical services and personnel structure had been optimised since modernisation for the production of large merchant vessels. The yard is no longer suitable for warship building, which has become an increasing complex specialist task. However, Harland and Wolff's capacity for building commercial type vessels is well recognised, and the yard will continue to be invited to tender for the construction of Royal fleet auxiliaries, and other Ministry of Defence vessels for which it has the capability.
However, while the Minister in reply to my written question said that
the yard is therefore no longer suitable for warship building.
the word "yard" is open to interpretation. The facilities are obviously suitable for the building of any type of ship, but it has been many years since a warship was built. A specialist system and organisation is needed for the building of a warship. In that respect, the yard may not be suitable at present, but given a reasonable amount of work and a reasonable promise of continuity it could be restructured. If the position is as bad as the Minister indicates, has he not considered the restructuring of the yard in such a way that it could take this type of order?
In view of the seriousness of Harland and Wolff's position, I ask the Minister to keep that in mind. The shipyard is central to the economy of East Belfast, Belfast as a whole, and the whole of Northern Ireland. I urge the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his answers on the building of warships at Harland and Wolff.
In common with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I have taken as the substance of my remarks Class V, on housing. I begin with the sale of public housing in Northern Ireland. Is the Minister able to give us an explanation of the delay that is taking place? I understand that in the area that I represent no house has been offered to a tenant since the proposition was made. Very few tenants, if any, have been given the price of their house. How many tenants have applied to buy their houses? When does the hon. Gentleman expect the first offers to be made? What procedure will be available to tenants who feel aggrieved about the price at which their house has been offered to them? Al-

ready, two persons in one street will be offered the same house at a different price because of the discount arrangements. Has any procedure been established whereby an appeal may be made to an independent tribunal so that an aggrieved party may have his case reassessed and the valuation officer's price scrutinised?
One of the greatest housing problems in Northern Ireland is allocations. Social reasons and not housing needs seem to be the main criteria. People can live in squalor yet find themselves continually put to the back of the queue by those who come within various priority groupings—for example, by those who have been separated or divorced. Is the Minister prepared to give a greater degree of priority to those who have genuine housing problems and who live in houses that are, in the wording of the city council and the district council's closing orders,
houses that are unfit for human habitation and not capable of being made fit at reasonable expense"?
If a house is not fit for human habitation I suggest that those who are living in it are as entitled to another house as those who are rehoused first because they come within other priority groupings.
Further, it seems that the Housing Executive's policy is completely to ignore transfer applications. The executive takes the view that applications will be left completely to the housing manager's discretion. There is no priority rating within the transfer application system. Will the Minister consider pressing the executive and his Department to undertake a reappraisal of the transfer system? I have an executive document that sets out the transfer selection scheme. On every aspect of the current guidelines there appear the words
although this again is a matter for discretion.
Surely no real consideration is being given to applicants who for real reasons are requiring alternative accommodation in a different area.
I shall demonstrate that by referring to an individual case. Like other hon. Members, I have a constituency surgery. I find it necessary to make 15 minute appointments through the day. On one occasion I got behind and left a large crowd of people in the waiting room. Under other circumstances those people


would not normally be together, but on this occasion they got together. One woman who came to see me lived in the Cregagh area and was seeking a transfer to Ardcarn, both in East Belfast.
She had been seeking that transfer for three years and her application had been in that long. She spoke to a woman living in Ardcarn who had been seeking a transfer to Cregagh during a similar period. They got talking and eventually told me that their problems had been solved. The Housing Executive and its famous computer must have been aware of the position of those women but they had never been matched up in the application system.
Could we not have a system where applications such as the two I have mentioned could be matched up? It should not be beyond the skills of the Housing Executive or its computer to deal with that. I ask the Minister to make available in Housing Executive offices a printout of transfer applications so that people could consult it and find out if they could transfer with others. If the issue is left to the Housing Executive, people and their applications will be forgotten.
Like other hon. Members, I make no apology for raising a particular constituency problem. Members from English, Scottish and Welsh constituencies may well throw up their hands in horror at the parochial nature of this problem, but this is the only forum in which I can raise it.
The case concerns the Newtownards Road redevelopment area and, in particular, the failure of the Housing Executive to live up to its promises to build a shopping complex there. In that area there was a famous institution known as "The Corner Shop". It provided far more than groceries and newspapers: it provided a community base—because it was open until all hours—where people could use the telephone and pass on messages. That shop had a distinct community function and formed a traditional part of the life of inner Belfast.
The residents there asked for this shop, in Fraser Street, to be kept and integrated into the new scheme. The Housing Executive of course turned down that request. The standard practice of planners is to clear a whole area and start anew.

They do not like the inconvenience of having to build round an existing establishment.
The Housing Executive gave a promise to the people of that area to build a shopping complex and it has gone back on its word. A replacement for the corner shop is being built but it is a lock-up shop, which is obviously not as adequate for local needs as the old shop. The Housing Executive, moreover, is not prepared to grant the lease of the lock-up shop to the person who owned and operated the old corner shop. Is the Minister prepared to say that he will allow this man to be granted the lease of the lock-up shop? He has served the community there for 20 years and has an established business in the area. Notice has gone out to him that he must quit his premises.
That has caused consternation in the area and has resulted in a loss of faith in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive by the people in the area. Will the Minister look into that matter? It may seem trifling to many hon. Members but it is important to the people in that area who found the corner shop a useful establishment.
Will the Minister investigate the problem of vesting orders? The Housing Executive appears to decide what to do with an area after it has applied for a vesting order. On some occasions, after applying for the vesting order the executive tells the people whose houses it has taken that it does not need the houses for the purpose for which the vesting order was obtained. However, the executive fails to sell such properties back to the people who originally owned them. That is indefensible on any grounds. How can the Minister justify that?
If one purchases a house as an investment one does not receive an adequate return. In one case the Housing Executive offered £200 for a house which only a few years before was bought for £5,000. The executive seems to pay compensation on the basis of a multiplier of the weekly rent when a sitting tenant occupies the house. That is wrong. How can the Minister justify buying a house for £200 from a person who purchased it for £5,000 a short time before?
Under Class IX I turn to the question of an establishment in East Belfast. I approach the matter with reluctance and


with as much delicacy as possible. I understand that the matter is being investigated by the police. My information is that three people in that East Belfast home have been suspended. I should like clarification from the Minister.
Allegations have been made about child prostitution in a Department of Health and Social Services boys' home. The allegations are causing great anxiety in the area. We have only press speculation and allegations from other individuals to go on. It is important that the Minister should give us some facts. I was informed by the Minister that, pending the outcome of inquiries, the Government have not conducted a separate investigation into the matter. I was told that no staff had been dismissed or suspended from duty, since no concrete evidence had been advanced to justify such action.
If three people have now been suspended, does it not follow that concrete evidence has been advanced? If that is so, may we be assured that there will be a full and public inquiry so that people can be satisfied that there is no cover-up? We have been informed by the press that the Department and the police have been aware of homosexuality in this home for about two years. I was told today, in a written answer, that that is not so. Can the Minister establish whether a report was made by the police at the end of December about such allegations? If that is so, the answer that I received is not correct.
Can the Minister clarify the position, so that public anxiety is alleviated? I ask the Minister to remember that boys in the care of the State are, according to the allegations, in great danger. For the sake of the public, the boys and, indeed, the staff, the fullest investigations should be conducted.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Philip Goodhart): As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have referred to housing issues, it may be convenient to the House if I intervene—I hope briefly—at this point. On the final point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), I will see that the Minister concerned writes to the

hon. Gentleman as quickly as possible. However, I can assure him that we have no interest at all in a cover-up.
The hon. Member raised two specific housing points. On the question of house sales, I know that it is alleged that the programme is going slowly. The hon. Gentleman suggested that none had been offered for sale. In fact, provisional offers have been made to 1,250 tenants and some 769 tenants have accepted the provisional offer. Formal offers have been made to 377 tenants and 255 have accepted, which is a rather higher proportion than had originally been thought.
The hon. Gentleman made some criticisms of the transfer system operated by the Housing Executive. Again, I appreciate the importance of the point, but in the course of the last year some 5,000 transfers were organised by the Housing Executive and, as far as I can make out, this is a much higher proportion of transfer in relation to housing stock than is normal in other parts of the United Kingdom, though I appreciate that it is important to keep the system under review and to improve it where possible.
The hon. Members for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and most hon. Members who have touched on the question of housing this evening argued that housing in Northern Ireland is a special case. The Government recognise this and have done so in the moneys that they have made available to the Housing Executive. At a time of extreme stringency in public expenditure, when housing programmes are being cut back in other parts of the United Kingdom, the capital programme of the Housing Executive is rising from £86 million to £112 million in the coming financial year. Total expenditure by the Housing Executive will increase from £255 million to £303 million. So it is right to talk of extra money being made available to continue, and, indeed, to intensify, the task of improving Northern Ireland's housing stock.
At the same time, it is fair to say that the rent increase that was announced for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive stock was lower than the guideline announced in England and Wales, where the guideline will be increased from the end of September by some £2.10. It has been alleged by the hon. Members for


Pontypridd and for Belfast, West that I was discourteous to the Housing Executive and others by not consulting them in advance. I can assure the House that there has not been consultation in the past four years. The Housing Executive was merely told at the time that the announcement was made of the size of the increase. There was no argument about that.
There were special problems this year in that the increase was related to the guidelines for England and Wales. No announcement of that was made until Thursday 21 February, while it was necessary to meet the administrative deadlines laid down by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and to announce a figure publicly by the morning of Friday 22 February. That gave us less than 24 hours to inform members of the Executive. I assure the House that it was not our intention to be discourteous to the Executive in any way. The problem will remain with us, as it remained with the previous Administration.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd referred, quite rightly, to the difficulty of young married couples trying to break into the housing market. That is precisely why the amount of money made available to the Executive for home loans in 1980–81 will be increased by 50 per cent.
in recent years Northern Ireland has taken the lead in developing the whole principle of co-ownership, which is of special value to young married couples. I am happy to say that in the coming financial year we shall make available an additional £4 million to develop co-ownership schemes.
There is an absolute identity of interest between hon. Members for Northern Ireland who take an interest in housing matters, the Housing Executive and the Department of the Environment, in that it is important to concentrate on improving the existing housing stock. That is why the amount of money that will be made available in the coming financial year will amount to more than £64 million. For the first time, the amount made available for planned and response maintenance will exceed the amount available to the expanded new building programme.
I concede that problems still exist. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr.

Powell) referred to the problem of dealing with rural cottages. He referred to some frustration on the part of his local Housing Executive manager in relation to certain schemes in his constituency.
Frustration can, of course, count both ways. Last July, the right hon. Gentleman referred to some cottages at Donacloney. A few days ago I looked at what had happened to that project. Last September, the Department asked the Executive to review the total cost of the scheme and to consider whether there would be a long-term demand for the cottages which would justify full improvement. The Executive has yet to tell us of its proposals. Frustration therefore exists on both sides. I fully concede that it is in no one's interest to have highly trained professionals in the Department of the Environment checking on the work of similarly highly trained professionals in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. However, we must be consistent.
I came to the Department of the Environment when the Rowland report had been submitted. In the subsequent debates on that report, there was pressure to increase control by the Department on the Executive. The Department is legally responsible for very large sums. It cannot lightly hand over control.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to school transport. He asked me to echo another place. He has spoken loudly on this issue. Another place has also spoken loudly on this subject this evening. I am sure that the Cabinet will take account of that vote.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd referred to education in Belfast. He suggested that we were cutting back the numbers of teachers and that the teacher-pupil ratios in Belfast were particularly bad. At the primary level, those ratios are generally better than they are in Great Britain. They are better in Belfast than they are in the rest of Northern Ireland. They are better in Belfast areas of need than in other areas of Belfast. At the beginning of the next school year, the pupil-teacher ratio in Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland at primary level should be better than it was at any time during the tenure of the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Tom Pendry: I am in an impossible situation. I have thrown away a brilliant speech. We all complimented the Minister on the way that he gave us background information to the debate. However, he asked us whether we had other suggestions.
I should like to make one. This debate will finish at 1.3 am. By then we shall have heard four ministerial speeches. I suggest that Ministers should rationalise their effort so that the rest of us are given a crack of the whip. That does not mean that they were the only culprits. Other hon. Members have spoken at length. However, in a four-hour debate it is impossible for us all to make meaningful contributions if some hon. Members make such long speeches.
I should have liked to take up several points. I wished to challenge the Under-Secretary's statement about the agricultural trust. He was not convincing. However, there is not time as the Minister wishes to reply and he must be given at least three minutes. I therefore conclude by saying that I hope that my remarks will be considered. I do so with a heavy heart as I had a number of very important comments to make.

Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and I appreciate his difficulty, which is no less than mine. In two to three minutes I was hoping to answer the points raised relating to the Department of Health and Social Security. Right hon. and hon. Members will have to await letters from my hon. Friend the Minister of State in that Department dealing with the important points raised.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made an interesting proposal with regard to procedure. He suggested that perhaps this debate might be treated similarly to the Consolidated Fund Bill debate by dividing it up sub-

ject by subject. That is not for us but for the Chair. If representations are made, perhaps a beter procedure can be devised to divide the debate into compartments, with a short answer from the appropriate Minister at the end of each.
I shall have to content myself with dealing with the major aspects of the Government's attitude to expenditure in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) appeared to suggest that we were being parsimonious in our attitude. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said that we did not have sufficient regard to the needs of Northern Ireland.
We are spending £2,300 million on 1½ million people. That figure does not include the Ministry of Defence costs for keeping the Army in Northern Ireland. It is merely the cost of maintaining the social structure. Of that sum, £1,000 million is raised by taxation in Northern Ireland. The remaining £1,300 million has to be found from the taxpayers of England, Scotland and Wales. There is a limit to the extent that they can be expected to provide money of that order. Nevertheless, we have regard to the needs of people of Northern Ireland—the economic deprivation that they have suffered and the problems there that do not exist elsewhere in the United Kingdom. For that reason, these vast sums of money are being spent.
I can give a further comparison. Per capita expenditure in Northern Ireland this year is £1,460. An average family of husband, wife and three children—

It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 29 February, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (COUNTY COURTS)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr.Hugh Rossi): I beg to move,
That the draft Country Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 26 Febrauary, be approved.
The order simply consolidates the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959, the County Court Appeals Act

(Northern Ireland) 1964 and the enactments amending those Acts. It makes no changes of substance to the existing law.
I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past One o'clock.